Preamble

The House met at Eleven o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

PIER AND HARBOUR PROVISIONAL ORDER (GLOUCESTER) BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Orders of the Day — EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

11.5 a.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This is a short and simple Bill, the aim of which is to enable the Export Credits Guarantee Department to continue with its work of insuring exporters against the risks of not getting paid. The need for the Bill arises because of the growing use by exporters of the Department's services, which has brought its liabilities, taken together with the liabilities which might mature, within reach of the figures of maximum liability which Parliament has so far authorised it to incur.
There are two separate figures of maximum liability and we are now proposing an increase in each. First, there is the figure for the maximum liabilities which may be incurred under Section 1 of the 1949 Act. Section 1 business is usually described as ordinary "commercial" business because, in accordance with the Act, it is done only after consultation with the Department's Advisory Council and, in practice, only with its approval.
The figure of maximum liability under the Act was set by the 1949 Act at £500 million and raised in 1952 to £750 million. Since then, the Department's business has developed to the point

where current liabilities are £550 million and contingent liabilities £170 million. This is an uncomfortable position, leaving little room for manoeuvre. There are a number of contracts in prospect and unless the Act were amended, we might find ourselves having to decline sound business simply because we were at the practical limit of our statutory authority.
It is, therefore, proposed to increase the figure to £1,000 million. This figure, if the House approves it, will, of course, enable us to cope with any increase in export credit insurance required in respect of exports to Russia following the recent Trade Agreement. I should make clear, however, that the decision to introduce the Bill was taken long before the proposal to have trade talks with Russia was put forward.
I now want to turn to the other figure which we are proposing to amend, that is, for maximum liabilities which may be incurred under Section 2 of the Act. This is what is known as "national interest" business. It may be used either to render economic assistance to overseas countries, for example, the Commonwealth Assistance loans provided for at the Montreal Conference or, in the words of the Act,
for the purpose of encouraging trade".
These loans are commonly called "special guarantees", but in either case the business is required to be done "in the national interest". The point is that the responsibility here for the transaction is taken over by the Government from the Advisory Council, whose advice and consent is not required.
The Government take the initiative either for political reasons in the broadest sense of the word or because they may have a reasonable expectation of what future prospects of a country were which might enable them to take a longer and more speculative view than the Advisory Council could, would or should take. Nevertheless, despite the apparently uncommercial nature of such transactions, the normal underwriting principles have to be observed.
The limit of liability for Section 2 business was set at £100 million in 1949 and increased to £150 million in 1952 and in 1957 to £250 million. The present position is that our actual liabilities


amount to £94 million and we have commitments for a further £90 million. Although, in this case, we are not, therefore, so near the ceiling as we are in Section I, we have to bear in mind the dual purpose of Section 2. We must have room within that limit for more "special guarantees."
There is, for example, the possibility that an important market or a particular export may no longer be acceptable to the Advisory Council as a commercial risk, but the national interest may require that risk to be taken. We must also have room for any more economic assistance loans which may be necessary. Consequently, we now propose to raise the maximum liability to £400 million.
So much for the content of the Bill. But in asking the House to give it a Second Reading I feel there are two issues to be settled. First, does the record of the Department and its present rôle in the export trade justify us in authorising this further increase to meet the Department's expanding business? Secondly, are the limits in the Bill too little, enough or too much?
Now, as to the record of the Department, its very success is the reason for asking the House to approve the Bill. In 1945–46 E.C.G.D. covered United Kingdom exports to a value of £49 million. In 1950–51 it covered United Kingdom exports to a value of £288 million. In 1958–59 it insured £530 million, ten times as much as thirteen years ago. There has also been a steady increase in the proportion of our exports which is insured by E.C.G.D. This proportion was, I understand, about 5 per cent. before the war. In 1950–51 it was 12·3 per cent., in 1957–58 it was 14 per cent; and in the last financial year 16 per cent. As a matter of interest, in the last quarter of the last financial year, it was running as high as 18 per cent.
Why has the share of United Kingdom exports covered by the Department increased? First, export business has recently tended to become generally riskier. Secondly, lengthening terms of trade in a buyers' market have increased the gross outstandings in respect of export credit sales of an individual exporter, so causing him to be more concerned over the risks affecting those

outstandings. Thirdly, E.C.G.D. has consistently canvassed the export trade, and indulged in deliberate planned publicity. Fourthly, I think we can say that a progressive acceptance of export credit insurance was, in any case, to be expected, as knowledge of the benefits of insurance spread through the export trade.
Nevertheless, some will say that the Department is not doing enough, some will say that its services are too expensive. Of course, it would be easy to answer all of these criticisms and to match all these demands if insurance, so called, was provided without regard to the true underwriting risks—that is to say, without any regard to the possibility of a loss. But it is not the job of the Department to make a continuous loss. If it does, it is merely providing a concealed subsidy.
It is easy to criticise the Department because it will not always meet the unreasonable and uncommercial requests which are sometimes made by a small minority of its clients. But, in the long run, it boils down to this, that there are no grounds for encouraging an exporter to export if he has no ultimate expectation of being paid other than by E.C.G.D. at the taxpayer's expense. After all, Parliament, over the years, has accepted that E.C.G.D. should run its business on commercial lines seeking to balance income with expenditure over a period of years. It is not expected to make a loss since that would be subsidising our exports. It is not expected to make a profit because it would be doing so at the exporter's expense and handicapping him unduly for the benefit of the taxpayer.
By masterly manoeuvring, to which the nearest analogy that suggests itself to me is tight-rope walking, it has achieved a notional credit balance of £18 million after insuring since 1929 about £5,000 million worth of exports. And this £18 million of surplus or reserve, whatever we like to call it, must be seen against its current outstanding risks of £650 million and of having insured in the last financial year alone £530 million worth of exports. So I think that we can claim that the Department has provided a service of insurance to the exporter—in a field which cannot be covered by the


commercial insurance market—at no cost to the taxpayers and, as the figures show, without imposing an unreasonable charge on the exporter.
I am sure that this is the right and, indeed, the only sensible lines on which to run a Government credit insurance organisation and we have carried this view with other export credit insurance organisations overseas—and I emphasise credit insurance. If we, the pioneers in this field, abandoned the principles of sound underwriting, others would follow and we would not necessarily win the ensuing credit race.
The E.C.G.D. is a typical British institution. It was originally set up in 1919 to finance supplies to the devastated countries in the Balkans. From that beginning it has evolved into an organisation for encouraging our exports all over the world by providing credit insurance. It is a Government Department engaged in trading in the open market and under an obligation, as I have explained, to make neither a profit nor a loss. It is responsible to a Minister of the Crown, but it is guided in its working policies by a group of unpaid private individuals. Here, I would like to pay a very warm tribute to the very able men from the City and from industry, who, under the chairmanship of Sir Geoffrey Gibbs, give us the benefit of all their wisdom and experience.
I am aware that the Department has its critics, and I am the last to suggest that such criticism should be ignored. Far from it. But, of course, the basis of most of the criticism of the Department by the individual businessman is that it will not provide him with the service he wants at the price he is prepared to pay. And, after all, other than the financial results to which I have referred, there is no yardstick by which to measure the services of E.C.G.D.
Most of the complaints that we receive of course, are allegations that some other foreign institution is doing better than our own and that the British exporter is thereby handicapped. But there is a good deal of confusion and very often like is not being compared with like. I am often told that another nation is able to give better terms or insure more in a particular market. Of course, this is sometimes true. It can happen that more cover is given in a

particular market by a foreign credit insurance organisation, or that the premium charge is less. Inevitably, this must happen sometimes because their assessment of the market may be more optimistic than ours, and their commitments there may be less.
But it is rarely pointed out, at any rate, to me, that the contrary more usually happens, which is that in many markets our assessment is more optimistic than that of our rivals and that we are thereby able to do and insure more business. No two organisations function on exactly the same lines and there may always be the odd case where the overseas organisation does more than E.C.G.D.
But the fact is that the Department, in general and over the broad range of British exports and for any exporter in particular, gives at least as full a cover in respect of risks specified, a percentage of cover exceeded by none, and at a cost which, overall, we believe to be less than that of others. As the Department's business develops and as it gains more experience, the spread of its risks has been improved; it has been able progressively to reduce the premiums charged and to develop new ways of serving its customers.
Sometimes I wish that those who "grouse" would really take a little more trouble to find out how their competitors abroad fare. They would find, for example, that the Department's credit limit service—the method of approving the amount of credit which an exporter may give to a particular buyer—is well in advance of practice elsewhere. The E.C.G.D. has information about 140,000 buyers in all parts of the world which enables it to give very quick service over a wide area. It makes no special charge for this. It may be worth contrasting this with the service in one country where an exporter is obliged to get his own reports on his buyer and to submit them with his application and in another country where an exporter is charged so much for each buyer on whom a figure is agreed.
The impression is sometimes created that the Department behaves rather like Mr. Molotov used to at the United Nations, and constantly says "No" to


the most reasonable offers. The usual accusation is that it is inflexible in its attitude. This epithet is varied by the use of "rigid" or "hidebound", or "unimaginative". But inflexible is the more usual. What it means is that the Department is not guilty of abandoning the principles of credit insurance and its statutory duty in order to help the complainant to get export business on his own terms.
I can assure the House that the Department is not inflexible. It has constantly modified and developed cover to meet changing conditions and circumstances and the new developments there have been in the last few years show that it is always striving to improve its services. But if flexibility means yielding to pressure, or special pleading, than I think that we are better without it. It is the essence of its task that the E.C.G.D. should treat all exporters with equal fairness and should not make a concession to one which, in the long run, is only at the expense of others, one way or another.
So much for the record of the Department and its role. The other question I posed was: are the limits of liability proposed in the Bill too little or too much? If the Bill becomes law, the E.C.G.D. will be in the position for some time to come of not having to turn away business because it is beyond its statutory limits of liability. I think that we have to consider the reason for having a statutory limit at all.
Except for two short periods the Department has never been a charge on the public funds, and, as I told the House, it now claims a notional £18 million credit balance. Nevertheless, the fact is that the public purse is committed to backing these guarantees—in the theoretical situation that each policy resulted in maximum loss. At present, that theoretical commitment is limited to £1,000 million. What the Bill proposes is to expand this to £1,400 million. I think that that is a very reasonable step forward. I cannot forecast when the House is likely to be asked again for a further increase in this authority. But I would not rule out the possibility if the present rate of development continues that that might be in two or three years' time. But I see no reason to object to that.
I think that Parliament has the right and the duty from time to time to have a look at this scheme and debate the work of this important service, and it is encouraging to think that the present opportunity is brought about by the very success that the Department is achieving.

11.25 a.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: Week by week this House is asked either to celebrate the success of a public enterprise by authorising a big expansion in its activities, as we are today, or, alternatively, to rescue from decline a languishing private industry by the free grant of public money, as we were doing in the case of the cotton industry a week or two ago, and no doubt we shall be doing again in the weeks ahead. Subsidies for private enterprises and loans for public enterprises seem to be the Government's current interpretation of their policy of Tory freedom.
Today, anyway, we are celebrating the success of a public enterprise; and I think that the relatively small audience which the Minister's Bill has attracted this morning is partly a tribute to the fact that the activities of the E.C.G.D. are so non-controversial nowadays. We can all join the Minister of State in congratulating the Department on its continued achievements, welcome the expansion of its activities and wish it success in future.
The life of the E.C.G.D. shows that what are essentially commercial and, indeed, really insurance activities—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley) takes an interest in them from that point of view—can be carried on to almost everybody's satisfaction with a financial profit to the Exchequer by a branch of a Government Department; because, administratively, that is what the E.C.G.D. is, and not even a public board. This is really a State insurance scheme that we are discussing today.
The Minister spoke of the E.C.G.D. originating in 1919, but I believe that it was the Parliament of 1929–31 which effectively set it up in anything like its present form. It was an Act of the Labour Government, in 1949, which expanded and gave it new powers and new functions after the last war. That Act has certainly stood the test of time, as so many Acts of that Parliament have.
The Minister gave us the figures today. The 1949 Act fixed the limit of the Section 1 guarantees, the annual commercial guarantees, at £500 million. In 1952, they rose to £750 million and today we are putting them at £1,000 million. Section 2 of the 1949 Act also introduced the powers, of which the Minister spoke, to give guarantees in the national interest both to encourage trade and to give economic assistance to under-developed countries—the special guarantee and economic assistance scheme as it is called. These liabilities started at £100 million in 1949 and we are now asked to raise them to £1,400 million in the present Bill. This is another tribute to the foresight of those who introduced that provision into the 1949 Act.
Thirdly, Section 3 of the 1949 Act-about which the Minister said almost nothing in his opening speech, but will, perhaps, say a little more later—provided the machinery by which the E.C.G.D. carries out the economic assistance part of the scheme and helps overseas Governments who wish to spend money on British goods by giving them tied loans. "Tied loans" was the phrase that the previous Minister of State used when he introduced the Bill in 1956–57, very much on the analogy, as I understand it, of the American Export-Import Bank, which is also a part of the American Government. In return for its loans, the E.C.G.D. holds securities. In this case the E.C.G.D. not merely guarantees credit as it normally does under Sections 1 and 2, but makes outright loans of public money for the encouragement of trade.
It is interesting to note, and it is not very well known, that the E.C.G.D. holds its securities in a respectable fund called the Acquisition of Guaranteed Securities Fund. Here we have a case of a public body acquiring securities with public money and holding them—which is perhaps an interesting precedent, if in a different field, for the National Superannuation Fund which the Labour Party one day hopes to set up. I do not think that the Institute of Directors has made any protest against this sinister Fund, or regards it as any menace to private enterprise.
The fact is that the successful operations of the E.C.G.D. have not merely

shown a slight profit but have been of enormous assistance to British export trade over the years. The Minister has told us that the percentage of exports covered has now risen to 16 per cent., and it therefore appears to be steadily, if gradually, rising. Indeed, quite a substantial part of our export trade could not be carried on at all if it had to be left entirely to private traders, bankers and the private insurance industry, and if we did not have this public enterprise standing behind it and now ready to grant financial backing which will attain the enormous figure of £1,400 million if the House passes the Bill. That is no doubt one reason why the Institute of Directors does not wish to close this Department.
However, for the reasons I have given, we can accept the proposal in the Bill that the financial limit should be raised. I would not feel kindly disposed to the idea, hinted at by the Minister, of abolishing the limit altogether. I do not think that Parliament would be doing its job if it agreed to that. I admit that the Minister did not suggest it himself, but he intimated that it had been suggested. Nevertheless, since we are trustees for the shareholders in this enterprise we are entitled to ask the Minister a few questions in order to elucidate how the business is being carried on.
First, will the Minister tell us a little more about the way in which he arrived at the new limits of £1,000 million and £400 million respectively? These are both very substantial jumps on the previous figures. He gave us the amounts of total liabilities which the Department had incurred, but he did not amplify the step in the argument by which he jumped from this to the limit he now proposes. Are these just convenient round numbers, or is there some slightly more scientific method by which the Minister has arrived at them? I also find it a little difficult to relate these limits to the figures in the annual accounts giving the maximum liability on current guarantees. I remember my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Rhodes) describing this as being as clear as mud after listening to the Minister's explanation of the previous Bill.
The last annual accounts, which are, admittedly, for March, 1958—because


we are always a year in arrears—show that the maximum liability on current guarantees under Section 1 was £453 million. This morning the Minister said that that figure had now risen to £550 million, and that there were also contingent liabilities of £170 million. As far as I know, the contingent liabilities are not revealed in the accounts shown to Parliament, and until the Minister spoke we were quite unaware of them. I take it that he has added those two figures together to make a total of £720 million, but we have to go a substantial way above that to reach the figure of £1,000 million mentioned by the Minister. Perhaps he can elucidate that point.
I want to ask him about what he has called the notional credit balance, which is what the ordinary man would call the net profit of the Department. According to the latest figures in the accounts, at March, 1958, this amounted to £12 million under Section 1, and another £2¼ million under Section 2. This morning the Minister mentioned a figure of £18 million, and I should like to know whether that figure relates to the whole of the Department's operations and not purely to those under Section 1, corresponding to the previous figure of £12 million. I should also like to know whether the surplus extends back to 1949 or 1929. If I understood him correctly, it goes right back to 1929.
Two years ago we were told that 90 per cent. of the Department's work still consisted of the ordinary commercial guarantees, and that all the Section 2 operations still amounted only to 10 per cent. It would be interesting to know what the figures are now. From the figures given this morning it would appear that the ordinary commercial guarantees have now fallen to rather less than 90 per cent.
The Minister might also give us a little more information about the Section 2 operations, and let us know what the Department has been doing, to what countries it has been lending, whether it has been lending mainly to traders or to Governments, and, in particular, what it has been doing by way of tied loans under the heading of economic assistance. We have had a little information on this matter in the case of Yugoslavia, Iran and Pakistan. Although it has rarely happened in the Department's history,

some things went wrong in those cases, and these operations were brought to light. Can the Minister tell us whether the dollar export policies, introduced quite recently, have proved successful, and have played a considerable part in the large increase in our dollar exports in the last few years?
I hope that I am not asking too many questions too quickly, but the Department's operations are of considerable interest. Have the loans made by way of purchases of securities been made simply to Governments, as in the case we heard about two years ago? It would be interesting to know whether some loans have been made to trading organisations, public or private.
I should like to know what is happening in relation to Clause 3, which was the Clause referred to by my hon. Friend as being as clear as mud, and which provides for the Board of Trade purchasing securities. I note that the 1949 Act says that these securities may be shares, bonds, stocks, bills, or promissory notes. In the case we discussed two years ago it appeared that promissory notes of an overseas Government were involved. Does the Department hold securities of one kind or another issued by trading bodies, or does it have only Government securities? The trading accounts are not clear on that point. We should like to know the value of the securities held, if that is not taxing the Minister's powers of information too heavily.
In the case of the Section 2 scheme, we are required under the Bill to set the new limit of £400 million. I take it that this limit covers all the operations under Section 2, that is to say, the normal cases where the credit is guaranteed but not actually advanced by the Department for one purpose or another, and where the money is, in effect, advanced by the purchase of securities. I take it that both operations added together make the limit of £400 million which we are now asked to authorise.
As the Minister said, from time to time one hears criticism of the Department's activities. One hears it said by some traders that premiums are too high. Others say that the length of credit guaranteed is not long enough. There are some who want 100 per cent. cover, and I think that the


maximum is still 95 per cent. That is a natural complaint to be made. In particular, I have heard a criticism made recently that the premiums for trade with China are unreasonably high. I forwarded to the Minister these detailed arguments relating to exports to China. I think that we can reasonably ask that all these complaints should be sympathetically and carefully considered and, above all—and this is the main principle—that British exporters should not be put at any substantial disadvantage to exporters from other countries, subject to the over-riding provision that we must not turn E.C.G.D. into an instrument for subsidising exports. Subject to that, we wish British exporters not to be worse off than their competitors in other countries.
But I do not think that these grievances, even if justified, need detract from the general welcome that the House should give to the successful work of the Export Credits Guarantee Department or to the Bill.

11.41 a.m.

Mr. Arthur Tiley: I must begin by declaring traditionally an interest in the Bill. I am becoming a little tired now of telling the House that I engage in insurance, but it is remarkable how many fields of insurance are concerned in our political work here.
I have a long experience of dealing with the Export Credits Guarantee Department, and I would remind my hon. Friend that we must not gauge what we are doing in this field by what other countries are doing. I always feel that it is a little dangerous and complacent to look at what other nations are doing, because our need to export is greater than that of any other nation and we must always be in the forefront. I felt once or twice during his speech that my hon. Friend had forgotten those halycon days when he himself was a merchant adventurer, seeking orders all over the world, and I thought that his responsibility in Horse Guards Parade was making him a little Whitehall-minded.
I am pleased to be able to speak after the right Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) on this occasion, and to agree with almost everything that he said. I do not want to use

the few minutes in which I wish to speak in making debating points about the Department. It is a Government institution, and it cannot be otherwise. I think that the officials at the Department would pay a tribute to the work that private enterprise played in this field before the Export Credits Guarantee Department was dreamed of.
There is an excellent relationship between private enterprise and the Department in this matter, and I shall not make a speech of disharmony. I would add my praise to the growth of the Department. It is a vastly different Department from the one that we knew in early years and immediately after the war. The staff seems to be imbued not with the spirit of the civil servants, but with the intention of making our exports grow, to the well being of the whole country.
I am glad to pay tribute to the work of the provincial offices, particularly in my own city, Bradford, and to the support that the provincial offices get from the head office in London. I sometimes wonder whether it would be a useful thing if there could be a more frequent interchange between trained personnel from the provinces and the head office personnel, for periods of two or three months, so that local conditions and difficulties which are learned by the men out in the field could be more readily understood at the head office in London.
There are difficulties, and I shall make a few suggestions, not in a carping fashion. I shall not make criticisms which do harm. I am making a few suggestions which, I hope, will make the Department grow and succeed even more in future years. I want to see its service improved. I shall not expect an answer to the points which I intend to raise this morning, because I think that they are too important to demand an answer "off the cuff," but I hope that my hon. Friend will give me an assurance that he will look into these matters, which I shall enumerate, with the highest officials of the Department.
I know that in Bradford we wonder whether there is a keen awareness in London of the difference between the approving of credit limits and the granting of insurance cover as between short-term credit and long-term credit. I will give one simple illustration. It is


a vastly different thing to be fixing up a policy, its credit terms and its terms of cover, if one is selling an atomic reactor, or a bridge, or 10 aeroplanes than it is if one is selling wool tops, or yarns, or waste, or cloth. It is felt in the textile district of Bradford that this difference is not adequately understood. One may have ample time for delay if a large firm of engineers is quoting for the construction of a harbour in another part of the world, but there is not a moment to be lost in the offices of the West Riding, which, with modern telephonic devices and electronics, are receiving cables from all over the world, demanding, in a few hours, acceptance of an order—or the order is lost.
I know that the Department is making a forward movement in this direction and that we are shortly to have in our provincial offices 30,000 or 40,000 ready-made decisions in respect of foreign customers, which can be given on the spur of the moment, but that is not always the important point. It is often an increased limit or altered credit terms which provokes the delay. This means that valuable orders leave our country and go to competitors because of the delay of two or three days which ensues before decisions are reached.
I should like to say a word about pre-shipment risks. When this cover was brought into being and the comprehensive policy of E.C.G.D. was extended to cover it, it was a step in the right direction, but we have left it incomplete It was not expected, when it was first introduced, that it would cover all eventualities, but we have not made any movement since then. It must be pointed out that no cover applies until an import licence is issued. This, again, is a very severe handicap to our important textile firms in the West Riding. It is a purely political risk that we wish to cover and not an ordinary trading risk.
In Japan, on 1st April each year, an Anglo-Japanese trading agreement is signed and from that moment all import licences are granted, but in the next few weeks and months all our workers and administrative staffs in firms in Bradford will be building up their stocks and preparing their patterns and making their cloth to sell to Japan next year. All these months elapse every year and no cover is provided until import

licences are granted after 1st April. Far more difficult questions than this have been solved by the Department. I am sure that here is a problem which could be dealt with because it is a political risk. It is not a risk of insolvency nine months from now; it is a risk of having all these fashion goods and textiles in our warehouses months before firms are ready to take orders from Japan, and if no import licences are granted heavy losses will follow.
I want again to point to the difficulty which occurs with South America. Everybody knows that one country after another in that part of the world has been closed to at least our textile interests. It is a very serious thing if a country is completely lost to one in trade. Some of the West Riding and Bradford houses have been dealing with South America for more than a hundred years. When a country is lost to one, the organisation goes, the advertising and the agencies close down and are never recovered.
Peru and Guatemala imposed recently some penal duties on the import of textile cloth. They were imposed without warning long after the orders had been received and many months after the firms had accumulated their stocks and got them ready for shipment. Here, again, is a political reason for the imposition of the duties. The goods lay on the shelves of the warehouses and factories in Bradford.
If it were a trade risk, my people would deal with it. They are used to competition and to being provoked in the ordinary course of business, but here is action by a Government, and it is our business in this House to deal with actions of that sort.
Now a word about the documents themselves. I fully realise the difficult field in which the Department operates. It is an easy thing if one has 1,000 lives insured to know by the law of averages what percentage are going to the in the next year. It is easy to know if one has 1,000 buildings insured what percentage of those buildings will, on average, be destroyed by fire. It used to be easy to know if one had 1,000 cars insured how many would meet with an accident, but that no longer applies.
In this matter we are dealing with all these political implications all over the


world and we are selling good faith and a promise to pay in the abstract. The abstract quality is always difficult to define in print. The policies are full of technical points. They have endorsements, amendments, attachments, small print, large print, printed slips, marginal notes, and so on. There are many differences between the documents which the Department provides in the different fields of its operation. It is a very easy thing when a loss arises for a firm to find that on a technical point it becomes uninsured.
I sometimes wonder, in view of all the difficulties that there are in the matter—we must not minimise them—how it is possible to express in black and white on one policy what one is setting out to do in view of the implications of political change and of the normal trading risks all over the world. I wonder whether the Department is generous enough on occasions in dealing with the claims when some technical requirement has been disobeyed. It is not a difficult thing in insurance for those running the Department, who have years of experience, to know whether a claim is made in good faith or in bad faith.
I, too, wish to pay a tribute to the work which my right hon. Friend's important Advisory Council does in London. The great changes and benefits which have ensued in recent years in this Department in the cover it provides have obviously been due to some deep thinking. But I wonder whether the Minister realises that there is no one from the textile industry on that Advisory Council. I think it might be a good thing if someone from Yorkshire, which is so important in the field of exports, were invited to serve on the Council. More than that, the Council is composed of very big businessmen. I have no doubt that the Institute of Directors will be well represented on it.
The West Riding of Yorkshire has hundreds of family concerns, little businesses and large ones, which have been in the family for 150 years. There ought to be on the Council a person representing the smaller businesses who knows the problems of those businesses. The Bradford Chamber of Commerce recently set up a panel of exporters who have these policies to consider, not in a

carping, critical fashion, all the difficulties attendant on the textile exporters and the details of the policies which they have with the Department. They have had many helpful interviews with the local officials in Bradford and I believe that they have requested that a delegation from Bradford should be received in London in the near future to discuss at a high level some of the points I have enumerated and others. I hope that I may ask the Minister to take a personal interest in the visit.
During the last few days I have been advertising commercially in this House some of the technical skills and artistry of our Bradford factory workers. Of course, when I say "workers" I mean directors as well, because in the textile trade the directors work in the businesses as hard as anyone else. I am not surprised that people throughout the world want to buy Bradford cloth, because it is perfect. There are no difficulties in the normal course of business which our men and women in the textile industry in the West Riding of Yorkshire are not prepared to face, but they are now confronted in this matter of exports with political difficulties and with the actions of Governments.
Private business has no tools with which to fight these battles. Here is a political challenge, and those people send us to this House to deal with political battles. How can they deal with them? Their job is to trade; our job is to accept the political challenge. The Department of my right hon. Friend is in being for that purpose. The Export Credit Guarantees Department is one of the tools which it can use. I hope that this challenge will be accepted and that we shall have a wider interpretation of the liabilities which the Department should accept politically. Then, I think, we should do a good deal more to help our export trade.
I am very glad to support the Bill and to pay tribute to the new spirit which in recent years has infused the Department and to the wider cover which it has been possible to give.

11.58 a.m.

Mr. John Stonehouse: I am very happy to follow the hon. Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley), who has made a very constructive speech, and I am also glad to be able


to support the Bill. I, too, wish to pay tribute to the excellent work done by the Export Credit Guarantees Department.
In my constituency there is a large number of small firms, and I would ask the Minister to bear in mind the point made by the hon. Member for Bradford, West that so much of our export drive is contributed to, not so much by the larger firms which get publicity for big export orders, but by the aggregation of small orders received by small concerns. As I say, in my constituency there are many small firms each making a contribution to the export drive.
I ask the Minister to bear in mind the importance of his Department paying particular attention to the needs and requirements of these small concerns. Their orders may not be very large, but I ask that his officials should give really close attention to the needs of these small firms.
I wish to ask whether the Minister really believes that adequate publicity is being given to the work of this Department. We have seen advertisements in the Press, but are his own officials making attempts to contact firms, not only those already in the export business, but those which could expand the scope of their activities into the export business and widen out from the purely domestic market, if they knew that this Department existed and its work could be extended to give them the service they need? I know that there are many firms which concentrate on the domestic market, because it is a comparatively easy and simple market to operate. These concerns might well find a market overseas were the Department to make them aware of the facilities which is provides.
I ask the Minister to consider the point made by the hon. Member for Bradford, West regarding the importance of speed and flexibility. Some years ago, when I was in Uganda, I was engaged in the importing of goods from Britain for cooperative societies. I well remember how difficult it was to secure the execution of those orders in the time that we required them to meet demands from consumers in Uganda. Sometimes it took as long as six or nine months, or even twelve months or more, before we had delivery of the goods.
When it came to textiles, the commodity to which the hon. Member for Bradford, West referred, we found that many competitors were able to beat Britain because they were more flexible. We found that the Japanese were very quick off the mark when dealing with competition from British textiles. I recall that very important textile firms in Britain sent out their representatives to Uganda with new designs to show to the importing house. Note was taken of the designs and some of them quickly found their way to Japan, and orders were executed by Japan and delivered in Uganda before the British textile merchants were able to make their deliveries.
This means that our textile merchants must be able to execute their orders quickly and obtain a service from the Department as rapidly as possible so as to meet this competition and to deal effectively and efficiently with the orders they receive. I commend the work of the Department. I am glad that the Bill is to be put on the Statute Book so that the work of the Department can be enlarged and extended.

12.4 p.m.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: By leave of the House, I should like to reply to some of the points which have been raised.
I am grateful to hon. Members for the tributes which they have paid to the Department. My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West (Mr. Tiley) referred to my past as being that of a merchant adventurer. I was never a merchant and I would ask the right hon. Member for Batter-sea, North (Mr. Jay) to confirm that I was not an adventurer. I may have been venturesome, but I was not an adventurerer.
The hon. Member for Battersea, North began his speech in a pleasing way by saying how nice it was to pay tribute to a successful Government Department. But I hope that we shall not continue with this kind of "tit for tat". Let us compromise by saying that this is a happy marriage between public service and private enterprise. I repeat that we should not neglect the work of the Advisory Council. Nearly all the members of the Council are businessmen and, certainly, the Department could not carry on without their help.
For reasons of tact may I ask the right hon. Gentleman not to talk too much about profit. E.C.G.D. has only a notional balance and it sometimes goes "in the red", so perhaps it would be better not to talk about it as profit. Referring to the historical past, it was the 1929 Act which put the Department on to a commercial basis for the first time and, as the result of the Niemeyer Report, advocated that it should be run on straightforward commercial lines.
The right hon. Gentleman fired a fuse-lade of questions at me. I was not able to take a note of all of them, but I will do my best to answer him. He asked me to be more explicit about how we reached the figures which we are asking the House to approve. At the risk of having this quoted against me I will be frank and say that it was, shall we say, intelligent guesswork. It is hard to give precise reasons, but if we look at Section 1 we have a current figure of actual liabilities of £550 million, and the contingencies bring it up to £720 million, which offers small scope for manoeuvre. It seems not unreasonable to make it up to the global figure which we have given. The actual liabilities have gone up by as much as £125 million in two years. Another thing that we have to remember is that the size of actual contracts overseas tends to get bigger as well. We had to decide what would be a reasonable increase in those circumstances and we thought that £1,000 million was about the right answer.
Under Section 2 we are in about the same position. There is not much room for manoeuvre if one takes into account the fact that the Section has a dual purpose. First, with special guarantees we have to bear in mind—I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not press me too much on this point—that economic conditions in some countries overseas may deteriorate and they may no longer be acceptable risks to the Advisory Council under Section 1. It may be that some very big contracts may have to be taken on non-commercial grounds.
The other use of the Section 2 provisions—economic assistance loans—involves very large sums. Bearing in mind those two commitments or risks, as we might like to call them, we are asking for a reasonable increase. The

right hon. Gentleman was quite right when he said that Section 3 is equivalent to the work of the Export—Import Bank but to make the parallel more exact I think that we should take Sections 2 and 3 together.

Mr. Jay: The Minister will confirm that the £400 million limit covers the whole of the activities, including what he called economic assistance loans. I take it that the whole capital value of the loans, therefore, even those made by the Department, comes within the £400 million?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: That is right. The limit covers what is done under Sections 2 and 3.
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I meant nothing sinister by my reference to abolishing the limit. That was far from my intention. The only reason I mentioned it was because it occurred to me that someone might say, "Why not put in a Clause to do that by Statutory Instrument?" I am sure that that would be wrong. We ought to have the opportunity for a full-scale debate.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about the surplus. That goes back to 1929, although, of course, that part of the surplus accruing under Section 2 goes back only to 1949.
The right hon. Gentleman asked for further particulars of what has been done under Section 3. Speaking from memory, we have given assistance to India, Sudan, Yugoslavia and Pakistan and they are all Government-to-Government loans. I have noted the right hon. Gentleman's comments about the premium on trade with China. I think that the remarks I made earlier about being fair to everybody apply in that case. It is easy for someone who is interested in a particular market to single it out and to say that the premium is too high. But we have to take account of the interests of everyone concerned.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, West raised an interesting point about delays and this was also referred to by the hon. Member for Wednesbury (Mr. Stonehouse). I am sorry to hear that there are these complaints about delays. I think, having looked into


them, that on balance, they are usually not justified; 70 per cent. of the applications submitted to E.C.G.D. are dealt with within forty-eight hours. The delays we hear about nearly always arise where it is a question of finding out about a new client. This may mean long correspondence with ports overseas to find out all we can about a particular customer. It is difficult to expect it to be very much expedited. If hon. Gentlemen have any cases in which they think the period has been unreasonable, let them write to me and I will see that the Department looks into it.
My hon. Friend also pleaded for the inclusion on the Advisory Council of a representative from his constituency and his industry. I will bear what he said in mind, but I must point out that already we have someone from the textile industry, and that the Advisory Council is not selected just to be representative of particular industries and sections of public opinion. It is desirable that its members should be chosen for the contribution they can make to the work of the Council and not for pressing sectional interests.
Other points that my hon. Friend raised were about different forms of risk-taking because of increased tariffs and of difficulties that arise from import licences not being given. I will look at everything he said about that, but I do not think that any of those are, or ever will be, insurable risks.
The hon. Member for Wednesbury said that he hoped we paid attention to the small firms. Some of the hon. Gentleman's remarks applied to the Board of Trade Export Services Branch rather than to the E.C.G.D. We certainly do pay attention to the small firms, and we are appreciative of the contribution they make to the exports of this country. He also asked me whether we gave adequate publicity to the service. I hope so. We spend £20,000 a year on advertising and T hope that we reach the right people.

The number of customers is growing and so is the size of the business. That is some guide that we are doing the right thing.
Lastly, I ought to pay, on behalf of all hon. Members who have spoken as well, as on behalf of the Minister who has most to do with it, a very warm tribute to the staff of this Department.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Legh.]

Committee upon Monday next.

EXPORT GUARANTEES [MONEY]

[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).

[Sir CHARLES MACANDRFW in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to increase the amount of the liabilities which may be undertaken by the Board of Trade in respect of guarantees under sections one and two of the Export Guarantees Act, 1949, it is expedient to authorise any increase attributable to the provisions of the said Act of the present Session—

(a) raising to one thousand million pounds the limit of seven hundred and fifty million pounds imposed by subsection (4) of section one of the said Act of 1949, as amended, in respect of guarantees under that section;
(b) raising to four hundred million pounds the limit of two hundred and fifty million pounds imposed by subsection (2) of section two of the said Act of 1949, as amended, in respect of guarantees under that section,

in the sums which, under section three or section four of the said Act of 1949, are to be or may be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, charged on or issued out of the Consolidated Fund, raised by borrowing or paid into the Exchequer.—[Mr. Vaughan-Morgan.]

Resolution to be reported.

Report to he received upon Monday next.

FIRE SERVICES [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of this Session to amend the Fire Services Act, 1947, and make further provision as to the pensions of persons transferring to or from the fire service and as to members of fire brigades becoming temporary instructors in training establishments, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) any increase attributable to the said Act of this Session in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under any other enactment;
(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any sums that may be required to be so paid by any rules made by virtue of the said Act under section two of the Superannuation (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1948.

Resolution agreed to.

FIRE SERVICES BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(REPEAL OF CERTAIN PRO VISIONS AS TO EXERCISE OF FUNCTIONS BY FIRE AUTHORITIES.)

12.15 p.m.

Mr. Reader Harris: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, to leave out paragraph (a).
The paragraph seeks to delete from the Fire Services Act, 1947, Section 1 (3), which gives to the Secretary of State for the Home Department power to make regulations prescribing standards of efficiency in various matters relating to fire fighting and the activities of fire brigades. I hope you will allow me, Sir Charles, to make one or two rather general remarks in view of the fact that we had no opportunity to debate this matter upon the Second Reading of the Bill. I will keep as near to the Amendment as possible.
Section 1 of the main Act gives to the Secretary of State—

The Chairman: If the hon. Gentleman wants to make a general speech on Clause 1 he had better wait until Clause 1 is proposed from the Chair. In addition to the Amendment he is moving, the hon. Gentleman has two further Amendments, in lines 9 and 12, to leave out paragraphs (b) and (c). Does he wish to move them?

Mr. Harris: Yes, Sir Charles, I would like to do so. I will stick to the question of efficiency of fire brigades and the power of the Secretary of State to see that that efficiency is maintained.
During the last twelve years, since the National Fire Service was denationalised, the Secretary of State has never made any regulations prescribing the efficiency of fire brigades. The Home Office has exercised control by various methods under other Sections of the Act, and the Home Office Inspectorate, which has no more duty in this regard than to report to the Home Secretary on the efficiency of fire brigades, has no power to order fire authorities to do anything. In the last resort, there has always been power to the Home Secretary to withhold all or part of the 25 per cent. grant, if the efficiency of a fire brigade was not up to scratch.
The power which the Home Secretary would have had in the last resort to make regulations on the efficiency of fire brigades is now to be taken away. This is a matter of some importance. The whole question of loosening the control of the Home Office over the efficiency of fire brigades is of great concern. I am moving the Amendment in order to get a statement from the Joint Under-Secretary of State on exactly how the Home Office intends in the future to ensure that the efficiency of fire brigades is maintained.
Fire brigades in this country are, in a sense, a national service. They certainly become a national service in time of a national emergency. If war were unfortunately to break out, the fire services would once again have to be nationalised and would become the cornerstone of the Civil Defence services. It is obviously in the national interest that their efficiency should remain on the highest possible level.
Under the new régime, how is the Home Secretary going to ensure this efficiency, having regard to the fact that the 25 per cent. grant has now been merged into the block grant? There is concern among members of fire brigades about this, although possibly not among the public who do not know what is happening because this is a rather abstruse point to the ordinary member of the public. How will the Home


Secretary exercise a measure of control over this most important service?

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I wish briefly to support what the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. Reader Harris) has said. We always listen to his contributions on this subject with great interest, because he speaks on it with an authority which I think is denied to most other hon. Members of the Committee.
We are anxious about this situation and, as hon. Members will remember, we opposed the Local Government Act and sought to exempt fire services from the block grant because we took the view that in many ways the service was analogous with that of the police and, to some extent, was a national service, requiring a national standard of efficiency.
In some ways the service is more national than the police. The reinforcement schemes, combination schemes and schemes for mutual assistance call for the maintenance of certain common standards throughout the country. If there were any fall below those standards, that would weaken the general fire service. We regret that the Government have decided to remove the power of the Home Secretary to issue regulations prescribing certain standards of efficiency. I appreciate, as the hon. Member has said, that it has not been necessary for the last twelve years for the Secretary of State to issue such regulations, but it is difficult to deny the fact that because the Secretary of State had those powers that was a negative incentive to local authorities which might have wanted to avoid having to do certain things to maintain their services at a high level. We are anxious that there should be no falling off in the general level of efficiency and we very much hope, as we know this is the view of the men in the service, that the Joint Under-Secretary will accept this Amendment.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Heston and lsleworth (Mr. Reader Harris) and to the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) for having raised

this point, because it gives an opportunity to clear up what I believe to be a genuine misconception.
May I say straight away that the Home Secretary is not abandoning his powers of control, but rather, in the manner in which the Bill is phrased, avoiding them being duplicated. I can assure my hon. Friend that if his Amendment were accepted it would virtually leave the existing position unchanged, because similar powers to those conferred by Section 1 (3) are in fact provided by the Local Government Act, 1958, and the corresponding Act for Scotland, which empowered the relevant Minister to prescribe standards and general requirements for any of the services covered by the general grant. The repeal of Section 3, therefore, merely removes one of two parallel powers and would still leave the Secretary of State in possession of the relevant power regarding efficiency.
As to the sanctions available, since 1st April, 1959, and in Scotland as from the beginning of the financial year 1959–1960, a 25 per cent. Exchequer grant paid to fire authorities under Section 25 of the Fire Services Act, 1947, has been abolished. Expenditure on fire services in future will be treated as relevant expenditure for the purposes of general grant payable under Section 1 of the Local Government Act, 1958, and the corresponding Scottish provisions. Section 3 (1) of the Act provides that
if the appropriate Minister is satisfied that a recipient authority has failed to … maintain reasonable standards in the provision of any of the services
under the general grant provisions, and considers that the general grant payable to the authority should be reduced, he may lay a report before Parliament stating the amount of the reduction and the reasons therefor and any representations by the authority and, if the House of Commons approves the report, the grant may be reduced accordingly.
Section 3 (4) of the Local Government Act and Section 3 (2) of the Local Government and of the Miscellaneous Provisions (Scotland) Act, 1958, provide that the Minister may make regulations subject to the negative Resolution procedure
prescribing standards and general requirements for the administration of any of the


services giving rise to relevant expenditure, and in determining … whether there has been any such failure".
to maintain reasonable standards or requirements
regard shall be had to any such regulations and any other standards or requirements imposed by or under any enactment.
That sounds very involved, but I want to emphasise that the abolition of the Secretary of State's power to prescribe standards of efficiency under the 1947 Act does not mean that he is giving up what is an essential power and what I agree with the hon. Member and my hon. Friend is an essential control over the maintenance of efficiency.
May I help hon. Members by giving four or five of the very important controls which the Home Secretary will, in fact, retain? The Home Secretary will retain power to make regulations about the qualifications for appointments, including examinations, and he retains the power for prescribing the minimum number of men to be on fire establishments. He retains power over the standards of training and equipment and power to hold inquiries under the Act in the case of an outbreak of fire.
It should be remembered that power to lay down standards of efficiency as to fire cover, training, equipment and fire prevention under section 1 will remain, but it will be exercised under the Local Government Act, 1958, instead of under the Fire Services Act. I hope that I have been able to reassure the hon. Member and my hon. Friend that the Home Secretary will retain these key controls, which, we agree with them, are very necessary in a service which has such very substantial and vital national duties.

Mr. William Hannan: I wish to put two points to the hon. Lady in connection with the list of items for which she said the Secretary of State will retain this power. Is it retained in relation to the efficiency of water supply either static or from supply points?
Secondly, can the hon. Lady say whether the Secretary of State has power over the conversion of water supply points to a uniform character? This applies particularly in Scotland, where only about 30 per cent. of the water supply points are of a uniform character

and others are being converted. I want to be assured that the Secretary of State, in the powers that the hon. Lady listed, has authority to see that there is efficiency of supply in Scotland. In the north of Scotland, only the other day, there was an outbreak of fire which destroyed hundreds of acres of young saplings, because of the lack of water supplies. The vehicles employed on that outbreak had to travel half a mile to the outbreak and keep a relay of water supply in operation to deal with it.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I apologise for the fact that I did not make it clear that the list I gave of controls which the Home Secretary is retaining was not exhaustive. I mentioned only some of those which apply particularly to the Amendment. I assure the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) that the Bill has to be read in conjunction with the Fire Services Act, 1947, in which there are provisions for water supplies. Nothing in this Bill alters in any way the existing law under that Act in relation to water supplies.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Reader Harris: I beg to move, in page 1, line 9, to leave out paragraph (b).
This paragraph seeks to delete from the 1947 Act subsection (3) of Section 3, which states:
Before making any standing arrangements for the exercise of the powers conferred by paragraph (e) of subsection (1) of this section, a fire authority shall obtain the approval of the Secretary of State to the proposed arrangements unless they have been approved by the Minister in charge of any other Government department.
This is a point of considerable substance for members of fire brigades. One thing on which they are very keen is that their activities, as far as possible, shall be confined to fire fighting and the ancillary services which a fire brigade normally gives. These ancillary services are fairly wide in their range. In the fire service they are called special services, and they are virtually all of an ad hoc nature. They are not affected by this subsection of the Act.
12.30 p.m.
There are occasionally, however, circumstances arising in which members of a fire brigade are given work to do


on a long-term basis which has nothing whatever to do with the fire service. One example, which is not a bad example in the normal sense of the word, is the use of members of a fire brigade in running an ambulance service. I am excluding that from the Bill because it has received sanction from both the Ministry of Health and the Home Office and has been recognised by the employers' side of the National Joint Council by the granting of extra pay where this duty is performed. There are other duties which the members of a fire brigade committee of a county or county borough council may give to members of the fire brigade which have nothing whatever to do with the fire service. One's mind goes back to before the war to the time in Scotland when firemen were regularly used for such work as lamp lighting. It might be possible for them to be used extensively today on building operations of one sort and another. I could give many examples.
Everything has been all right for the last twelve years because before any arrangements of this kind could be made the approval of the Home Office had to be sought, and that has acted as a deterrent. The Bill would remove this deterrent. I must tell my hon. Friend that there is great concern among all ranks in the fire service, both in the National Association of Fire Officers and the Fire Brigades Union, at what may happen if the Section is removed from the Act.
On this occasion I have not put down a probing Amendment to obtain a palliative statement from my hon. Friend. This is a matter of great substance and concern. I hope that she will see her way to delete this subsection from the Bill. No great harm would be done, but if the subsection is taken out of the main Act as is at present proposed, we feel that there will be nothing whatever to prevent a fire brigade committee from using members of a fire brigade on almost any work they like, subject always to the agreement of the trade unions—and sometimes that may be difficult to operate. I hope that my hon. Friend will reconsider the matter in the light of what I have said.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Here, again, I am in broad agreement with the hon.

Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. Reader Harris). This is not an easy matter to decide because in all these questions one has to strike a balance between giving a reasonable discretion to the local authority and at the same time retaining certain powers of direction, advice and control at the centre. One wishes at all costs to avoid too grandmotherly a control of the local authority. Not that the hon. Lady could ever seem to be grandmotherly, and I hope that she will not take it that I was referring to her.
There is, however, a good deal of objection on the part of members of many brigades to these extraneous duties which they have to perform. They volunteer for the fire service in order to fight fires, they take great pride in the calling which they have adopted and they are not enthusiastic about pumping out sumps and cleaning out mill lodges, for which standing arrangements may be made. There is some apprehension on the part of the Fire Brigades Union, which is very closely in touch with the men who work in the fire service, that if this subsection remains in the Bill there may well be a deterioration in the situation, that some of the less good authorities—there are no bad local authorities—may gradually extend the standing arrangements and there may be a general lowering of the type of work which the fire services are called upon to do.
Having given a good deal of thought to the matter, it seems to me that it would be right for the Home Secretary to retain his power to approve standing arrangements made by the local authorities but to be liberal and flexible in his interpretation of it. T should like to read what my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), whom we are delighted to see with us today, said in Committee on the Fire Services Bill, 1947. He said:
… it is difficult to have positive or negative lists,"—
that is, lists of the kind of things which ought to be approved—
and realising the common sense and humanity that are generally displayed in matters of this kind I am prepared to leave it to the good sense and discretion of the authorities.
Frankly, what I do desire to protect myself against is finding the fire brigade used regularly for purposes which might interfere


with its work as a fire brigade."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee B, 24th April, 1947; c. 1592.]
That seems to me to be an unexceptionable statement by my right hon. Friend and I very much hope that the Joint Under-Secretary of State will find it possible to endorse that principle and accept the Amendment.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. Reader Harris) that considerable thought has been given to this matter. I realise that the intention of the provision which he seeks to keep was to provide a check on the habitual use of fire brigades in non-fire-fighting work which may effect the primary function of the brigade. The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), then Home Secretary, was considering the Bill in 1947 at a time when the Fire Service organisation was in the melting pot and fire brigades were about to be transferred to the authorities, many of whom had no previous experience of fire brigade administration.
A provision of this kind was a sensible precaution at that time, although from the quotation which the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) has read it seems that the right hon. Gentleman even then realised that these were very responsible and powerful bodies who would not lightly abuse so valuable a service by using it on less important work when its major work was that of fire cover and fighting fire.
In our experience during the eleven years since the main Act came into operation we have had no reason to believe that without the control which existed on fire authorities they would have misused their powers. My hon. Friend suggested that every case had to be referred to the Secretary of State, but that is not so. The great majority of cases in which fire authorities have exercised their powers under Section 3 (1, e) to employ their brigades for non-fire-fighting purposes have been cases in which the approval of the Secretary of State has not been required. Experience of these cases has suggested very strongly to us that if the requirement for the Secretary of State's approval is abolished the fire authorities can be relied upon to make an equally reasonable use of their powers

in the case of those standing arrangements which at present require such approval.
It is inconceivable that these large and responsible authorities, be they county boroughs or counties, would habitually use members of the fire brigade for such jobs as collecting refuse or cleaning sewers, jobs which have no relation to fire brigade work and might seriously interfere with the primary function of the brigade. There is no reason to think that these responsible bodies will abuse the concessions which the Bill makes. They are important and responsible bodies, and I am sure that they are as conscious as we are at the Home Office that the first function of the brigade, to which all other functions must be subordinated, is to be in a state of readiness to fight fires with the maximum possible efficiency and the best cover.
They have shown that they are aware of their responsibilities in this matter. Discussion in the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council has shown that it may be confidently expected that the power to use brigades for non-fire-fighting services will be reasonably exercised. The danger of inefficiency is so small that for the Secretary of State to retain this power in the present enhanced state of the fire service, would, we believe, be unjustified.
There are other statutory safeguards against inefficiency. Although my hon. Friend dismissed rather lightly the responsibilities of Her Majesty's fire inspectors, they can be relied upon to bring to notice any instance of inefficiency which might arise as a result of employing brigades on non-fire-fighting functions.
I can assure the Committee that we have given very serious consideration to this. Local authorities feel that it is a responsibility to which they are entitled and that their record over the past years justifies us in having this measure of confidence in them. I hope that my hon. Friend will feel able to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Hannan: I have no intention of drawing the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland to his feet, but I want to make this point in furtherance of the Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. Reader Harris). The Joint Under-Secretary of State will have noted that in the Chief Fire Inspector's Report for 1958 the point


is made that the numbers attending the fire services' own colleges for instruction and training have been kept down because of the great need for men being on the spot to discharge their own duties of maintaining fire cover.
I am using that as an illustration of the great need for ensuring that those employed by the fire services are employed on their primary duties and not allowed to undertake jobs outside those duties. We are all aware of the occasions when they are asked to rescue a cat in extremity at the top of a tree, or help someone's pet, or go to the rescue of someone locked out. Those sort of duties will continue, but their first function is to give adequate cover in the case of emergency. In view of this statement about the difficulty of maintaining numbers of classes, it is evident that the fire services have not adequate numbers to provide outside services to any large extent.

Mr. Nigel Nicolson: If my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State replies, will she, at the same time, elaborate a little further than she did just now on what extra powers will be given under the Bill to local fire committees? She said that the great majority of cases where fire brigades are used for other purposes than fire fighting were already in the hands of local committees, but that a few powers were still reserved under the existing Act for the approval of the Home Secretary.
Exactly what are the latter powers? One assumes that the emergency use of a fire brigade for non-fire-fighting purposes is already in the hands of the local committee. For instance, no one will suggest that the approval of the Home Secretary is required before using the fire fighting equipment locally available to rescue a cat from the top of a tree or a small boy from the bottom of a well. Clearly, those emergency powers must remain locally.
If we, as I sincerely hope that we will, reject the Amendment, will it put very great power in the hands of local committees to use the equipment for purposes which have nothing to do with fire fighting?

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I listened with great attention to what the hon.

Lady said. She allayed some of the anxieties which I had. Clearly, the essence of democracy is giving other people the right to make what we ourselves would regard as mistakes. One does not want to keep local authorities on a leading rein and be too strict in telling them exactly what they ought to do. At the same time, the hon. Lady's confidence in local authorities in some respects may be excessive, because I have had occasion in the past—no doubt other hon. Members have—to draw the attention of the Home Office to the position in certain local authority areas where firemen are employed as gardeners and on other extraneous jobs of that kind, which does not betoken real responsibility on the part of local authorities.
12.45 p.m.
It may be using too much of a big stick to include in the Bill powers of direction in matters of this kind, although I should have thought that perhaps the Home Secretary might have retained them and exercised them liberally and flexibly. If the Government do not feel able to meet the point of the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. Reader Harris), will the hon. Lady undertake that, when the Bill becomes an Act, in any guidance given to local fire authorities emphasis will be laid upon the need for being sensible and restrained in making standing arrangements of this kind?

Amendment negatived.

Motion made and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Reader Harris: Before we part with Clause 1, which in all its four paragraphs adds up to a relaxation of control by the Home Office, I draw attention to Clause 1 (c), which constitutes a form of relaxation of control from below. Clause 1 (c) seeks to delete Section 20 of the Fire Services Act, 1947, which makes it compulsory upon a fire authority to maintain a fire brigade committee, at any rate in a county council. Section 20 applied to counties other than the London County Council.
I remember very well the discussions on that Section which took place at the Home Office when the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) was


Home Secretary. The Section was welcomed by all connected with fire services. The employees welcomed it, because they saw in it ways of preventing fire brigades once again, as in some parts of the country pre-war, becoming tied up with the police or any other local authority service.
The Section preserved the integrity of the fire brigade and kept it separate from any other local government service. It was welcomed also by representatives of many local authority associations, because it gave an opportunity for urban district councils, non-county boroughs and rural district councils to have representation on the fire brigade committees. At the time that was very important, because those councils had had fire brigades before nationalisation and the right hon. Gentleman had not returned their fire brigades to them, but had given them—rightly I think—to counties and county boroughs. In order to allow those authorities which had had fire brigades to have some say in the fire cover in their areas, fire brigade committees were constituted, which gave local representatives some say in what was going on in fire fighting.
I am speaking now as a representative of Heston and Isleworth, which is one such country district which used to have a fire brigade, but lost it on denationalisation and never got it back. It is very useful that local authorities at the lower levels should have an opportunity of saying what goes on in fire fighting in their areas. I am aware that every urban and rural district council is covered for representation purposes by a county councillor.
On the other hand, that county councillor may not be a member of the county council's fire brigade committee, in which case the say which the rural district council, for instance, has in fire cover is very remote. After all, a county coucillor is a busy man. He may be far too busy on other committees to pay attention to what is going on in the fire brigade committee. Surely it is right that there should be a continance of the existing system whereby non-county boroughs, county districts, urban districts and rural districts should still have some say about fire cover in their areas. I know that in Heston and Isleworth they take a very great interest in fire cover. It is a pity, if we are to

relax control from above, that we should also relax control from below, because this proposal is in no way related to the 25 per cent. grant or the block grant. Therefore, before we part with this Clause, I wonder if my hon. Friend would give an undertaking to reconsider the matter at a later stage—if, indeed, there is time to do so. It would be appreciated by the representatives of the local authorities, and would meet the wishes of the trade unions in the fire services.

Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: I feel somewhat sorry that my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary should, apparently, be attacked on both sides on a Bill that relaxes controls. It would be a great great pity were the impression given that there were not a great many people who warmly welcome the provisions of the Bill.
I did not mind my hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. Reader Harris) making his point on the Fire Brigades Union, but I do not think that he accurately reflects the views of the local authority associations on this matter. I will have something to say later on about the fact that the Bill does not go far enough in relaxing control, but so far as it abolishes the requirement under the 1947 Act that the fire brigade committees must consist in part of representatives of county district councils, I think that it is fair to say that, on the whole, the county district councils are not worried. They feel that the Bill is in line with modern ideas, which are tending towards a situation in which the local authority that is directly responsible for a function should be allowed to exercise it as of right, and without grandmotherly interference either from the Home Office or any other authority—

Mr. Reader Harris: My hon. Friend says that I do not accurately reflect the views of the local authority associations, but is it not right that he is putting the point of view of the big battalions—the associations of the municipal corporations and the county councils—while I was putting that of the urban district and rural district associations?

Mr. Rippon: I am prepared to accept that, but it is very different from saying local authority associations generally.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I am sorry that the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon) has introduced a note of controversy. I do not think that anybody has so far attacked the Joint Under-Secretary, as I am sure she would be the first to agree. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman was here last Friday but, had he been, he might have forced a Second Reading debate, in which case it would have been unnecessary for those of us who were present last Friday and are present again today to raise general considerations in Committee. Because of the way we facilitated the Bill last Friday we have been denied the opportunity of discussing the general principles of the Bill, but, if it is any comfort to the hon. Gentleman, we all welcome those general principles.
There is no objection to the course that the Government have adopted. On the whole, I think that they have dealt very well indeed with the difficult situation caused by what I think was the regrettable decision to change the financial provisions on which all this was based. We accept the general proposals. At the same time, that should not deny us the opportunity of raising questions of detail such as that to which the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. Reader Harris) has called our attention.
I would rather dislike any of us getting into the position of being the spokesmen of various outside organisations, and having to stick entirely and in detail to any advice we got from various local authority associations. Like the hon. Member for Norwich, South, I am a vice-president of the Association of Municipal Corporations, and from any of the advice I have had from that association I am not aware that the smaller local authorities are happy about the suggestion that they should be denied an opportunity of serving on the county fire brigade committees, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not give that impression.
It would be a pity, when we have these county fire brigade committees working very well and happily, and giving the smaller local authorities in which the hon. Gentleman and I are particularly interested a chance to have a say in the control of the county fire services, if that machinery were to be

destroyed. It is particularly important in Lancashire—perhaps more important than in any other part of the country—which is a county divided into a very large number of county boroughs, and the non-county boroughs feel very remote from the seat of government at Preston.
Here, again, I should like to tell the hon. Lady that it might be a mistake to write this into the Bill—I think that the Government are right there—but if she would tell us that, in any regulations or circulars issued to the local authorities, or in any advice tendered to them, the Home Secretary would be prepared to say that the Home Office attaches considerable importance to the county fire brigade committees, it would go a long way to allaying the anxiety that some of us feel.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: While I cannot go the whole way with my hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. Reader Harris), I hope that I shall be able to reassure him on certain aspects regarding consultation. The reason for removing this requirement to appoint fire brigade committees is the same as that applying to the removal of the statutory power in relation to standing arrangements for the employment of fire brigades for purposes other than fire fighting.
The case for the statutory requirement in relation to management and administration is nothing like as strong as it was when the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) introduced his Bill in 1947. Then, we had many smaller authorities with experience in running their own fire brigades prior to the war, and we were devolving new responsibilities on authorities that had not had the experience. There was then a very strong case indeed for having on the committees members of smaller authorities which had previously run their own fire brigades, who could give their knowledge and experience for the benefit of the new members from the larger authorities who, at that time, were charged with the new responsibility for running fire brigades.
County councils have now had eleven years experience of administering fire brigades, and the case for requiring county district councils to participate in


the work of fire brigade administration is not nearly as strong now as it was in 1947. It is the view of the county councils that they should be relieved of what has, in some cases, become a very irksome and burdensome procedure. For example, it is at present necessary for a county council to inform all district councils of even the most trivial amendment to the establishment scheme, and to consider their representations. We believe that the time has come when it is not unreasonable for this particular statutory obligation and requirement to be allowed to lapse.
We have not, however, accepted this as a means by which there should no longer be any consultation, and I am very happy to be able to tell my hon. Friend that discussions have taken place with the local authority associations, and the County Council Association has expressed the following view:
While the Association welcome the repeal of the statutory requirement to appoint fire brigade committees, they would feel it unfortunate if one of the first results of this freedom from control were to be that county councils made no effort to co-opt to their fire brigade committees some persons who are members of county district councils. Similarly, the Association feels, although the procedure for consultation with county district councils concerning changes in fire brigade establishments will no longer be necessary, they hope that such consultation will continue to take place in appropriate cases, as for example, when a proposal for the closing of a fire station is under consideration.
There is that undertaking, and a readiness to discuss matters that are quite obviously of import to local authorities. It is also a very fair consideration that at the present time the most minute and trivial matters have to be delayed while they go the rounds of all local authorities. I hope that hon. Members will accept the assurance from the County Councils Association that it has no intention, as a result of the new legislation, of abandoning its contact and co-operation with the local authority associations. In those circumstances, I hope that my hon. Friend will find himself able to withdraw his Amendment.

1.0 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I was not aware that the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. Reader Harris) had moved an Amendment at this stage.

Mr. Reader Harris: I was speaking on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."

Mr. Ede: Exactly. To have succeeded in his laudable desire he would have had to wreck the whole Clause.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I apologise. I was misled by the fact that my hon. Friend originally had an Amendment on the Notice Paper and I had for the moment forgotten that it had not been called and that he was using the opportunity to speak on the Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill,"

Mr. Ede: I hope that what the hop. Lady has told us will be the attitude of the county councils throughout the country to the future relationship with county district councils in this matter, for there is no doubt that people can be gravely concerned about such matters as the proposal to close a fire station, even in a case like suburban Surrey, where only those most closely connected with local government have the remotest idea of the actual boundaries of county district councils.
The hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon) was at one time Mayor of Surbiton, and if he were as efficient a member of the House of Commons as he was Mayor of Surbiton I should be a great deal happier about him. He knows the difficulties there were in bygone days over the narrow limits within which fire brigades and fire services operated. He is aware that frequently there was an unnecessary proliferation of services, because each fairly wealthy county district council, as they were in that area, wanted to have cover for each urban district or non-county borough that, except in the case of a national disaster like a war, would have hardly been likely to be required.
I welcome the statement made by the hon. Lady because I think it is very desirable that there should be a direct means of contact between the county district councils and the fire brigade committee where these sorts of intimate details which in this service are most important shall be easily and readily discussed. It is quite easy with a fire brigade committee for a county, not particularising any county, to find that there is a sweep of the county of considerable


area and importance which just does not happen to have attracted a county councillor who is willing or anxious to serve on the fire brigade committee.
What we did under the original Act was to arrange for electoral "colleges" of local authorities and county district councils who met to nominate a person from each convenient area in the county to serve on the committee. The county council has the power to appoint co-opted members on to any committee of the county council, and, although this will no longer be statutory, I hope that in any county that has a very considerable area to administer, an arrangement will be made whereby persons in the various localities of the county not serving on the county council but who take a lively interest in this matter, will be able to continue the service which, to my knowledge, many of them have willingly and efficiently given under the principal Act. If it is done in that voluntary way it may even be on occasion more effective than if it depends on a statutory duty.
I sincerely hope that there will be the desire on the part of all county councils not to lose the valuable contacts that the present law has given them.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 2 to 4 ordered to stand pan of the Bill.

Clause 5.—(CONDITIONS OF SERVICE.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Reader Harris: This Clause is one of the very greatest importance to all who serve in fire brigades, because it is the Clause which no longer makes it necessary for the Home Secretary to make regulations which govern the pay and conditions of service of members of fire brigades.
This is the one Clause in the Bill which has led many members of fire brigades to believe that they are now being thrown to the- wolves, if I may use that phrase about the local authorities, in matters of pay, hours of duty, and so forth. The local authority associations have wanted this Clause for a very long time, because they have always taken the view that they

know how to be good employers, that they are, in fact, good employers and that members of fire brigades have nothing to worry about. By and large, that is true, and though there is always the recalcitrant fire authority which chooses not to implement something in a regulation which is of a permissive nature, so far as permissive regulations go, there is no change in the situation.
On the other hand, pay and hours of duty of the junior ranks in the fire service have been laid down in mandatory form in the regulations and it is these regulations which will in due course disappear. I do not think that the representative bodies in the fire service are necessarily concerned about this too much, provided that there is always some method whereby a local authority can in the end be brought to heel.
Obviously, in the final analysis the Home Office could, I suppose, withhold grant if the fire authority did not comply with the mandatory regulations. It will not be nearly so easy now to get that withholding of grant applied, although there is some provision for it in the Local Government Act, 1958. It is presumed now that the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act will now be the relevant Act for seeing that individual fire authorities carry out their duties in a reasonable manner.
My chief reason for speaking on this Clause is that I am wondering whether the Clause affects in any way the last paragraph of Section 17 of the main Act referring to the Wages Councils Act, 1945. I apologise for my ignorance of this matter. Possibly this Act has now been repealed and does not apply any longer. The main concern is that there should be reference to arbitration, not only that it shall be possible to reach an agreement between the two sides in the fire service, the employers and employees, but also that new fire authorities will be compelled eventually to comply with reasonable conditions which are agreed on the National Joint Council for local authority fire brigades.
I do not think I need say any more except to remind the Joint Under-Secretary that this is a very big step in the relaxation of controls which the Home Office has exercised for so long over the fire brigades. It is a relaxation


which does not meet with universal approval, but if it has got to come I suppose that we must accept it.
So far as members of the fire brigades are concerned, this is a retrograde step in their conditions of service. There is great concern lest we get in the fire service what exists in some branches of local government, and that is a complete departure from national standards of pay. We do not want to have what applies in the National Union of Public Employees—zoning for pay arrangements whereby the pay in one zone is different from that in another, depending on whether or not the employment situation is easy or difficult.
We are very anxious that the fire services should maintain a national standard throughout the country, because it is fairest for the employees, and, in the end, it contributes to the efficiency of the fire brigades. We hope that when the local authorities come into complete control, they will view the matter in the same light as did the Home Office in the past, because we regret generally the passing of control from the Home Office in this matter.

Mr. Ede: I share the misgivings felt by the hon. Member for Heston and Isle-worth (Mr. Reader Harris). Do not let us forget that, in the event of a grave national emergency, it has always been said that the first thing to be done will be to re-nationalise the fire services. I do not think that there is any difference between the two sides of the House on that. It is, therefore, very essential that the national unity of the service, now that some of the central controls are being relaxed, should always be borne in mind. I very sincerely hope that it will be recognised by all the fire authorities that their position is different from that of any other service in that there is no doubt that, in the event of a grave national emergency—and everyone knows what those three words mean—this service will again become national in scope and in administration.
I do not want to see us drift into a situation in which we have immobility in the service, even while under local control, because of differing scales of salaries and conditions in various parts of the country. It is very important that this shall be a service in which men can move from one area to another and

acquire a range of experience which will make them really efficient members of the service, particularly if, in an emergency, they should have to be moved from one part of the country to another.
I know that Manchester was in a serious plight during the war owing to heavy bombardment, and that fire services far from Manchester received instructions from the centre that they were to proceed with all possible speed to assist in dealing with the conflagration and its results as they affected Manchester. I also know that there were other places where similar efforts had to be made.
One of the things that astounded me was that before they took over the local authorities met and agreed on scales of salaries and wages which were more than would have been thought of had the local authorities not taken the opportunity to move in before they actually had the statutory powers. I rather imagine that the hon. Member for Heston and Isle-worth, who was actively engaged in these affairs at the time, also received a pleasant surprise in the way that the first scale was negotiated.

Mr. Reader Harris: Hear, hear.

Mr. Ede: I hope that there will be a feeling of responsibility in the local fire authorities, and a recognition that it is essential that this service, on which the safety not merely of the lives of the people but of the whole social arrangements of the country, might depend in a grave emergency, must be unified, and that this unity will not be disturbed because of anything that might happen if unwise counsels should prevail as a result of the passing of this Clause.

Mr. Hannan: May I add a sentence or two of support for what has been said on the extremely important aspect of this Clause? I was not concerned with this matter as directly, in the important sense, as the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. Reader Harris), and to a much lesser extent than my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), but at the beginning of the war, when the conditions of pay and service were brought into a uniform pattern, that was one of the first things which gave an impetus to the recruiting which was so very necessary to build up the fire services.
I wish to ask the Joint Under-Secretary to impress upon the local authorities how important it is that they should not deviate in this matter of conditions of service. If there is—which God forbid—a national emergency in the future, all the work which my right hon. Friend and others did will have to be gone though once more, to the great disadvantage of the country. I therefore support them in the contention which they have put forward, and I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to reassure us that the points they have raised are kept in mind.

1.15 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: While I hope that we can have the advantage of hearing the views of the Joint Under-Secretary, perhaps it might be convenient for me to intervene at this point to express my support for the point of view expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) and other hon. Members. I think that it would be a great mistake now if we did depart from any national standard of conditions, and that any zonal arrangements would be disastrous. I wish to remind the hon. Lady that the men and the officers in the fire services are organised on a national basis, and I am quite sure that they will be able to look after their own interests and deal with any recalcitrant authorities which seek to depart from any national standard. On the whole, relations are very friendly, and it would be a great pity if such action as that were necessary.
It would be a great help indeed if the Home Office could do something towards maintaining the national standards of conditions of service which have now existed for so long, and I intervene at this stage only to suggest that perhaps the hon. Lady might look at the matter again between now and Report stage and consider whether something can be done at that time to meet the legitimate points which have been made.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I am very pleased to have the opportunity to clear up, I hope, what I believe is an unnecessary apprehension about the manner in which these new arrangements will work. I do not think that there is the slightest intention or desire on the part of the fire authorities to do other than abide by

national negotiations and the national scale, and I am sure that the apprehensions which my hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. Reader Harris) expressed about differing rates are unfounded.
Perhaps I could clarify the position as it is now and as it will apply after the passing of this Measure. The present situation is that there is satisfactory national negotiating machinery in the form of two National Joint Councils—one for chief fire officers and one for the ranks below chief fire officer—but that the recommendations of these bodies do not take effect until the Secretary of State has approved them and has embodied them in regulations. He also has the power to initiate changes. We believe that the stage has been reached where the known views of fire authorities and members of brigades can be met, and the Secretary of State's powers as regards pay and conditions of service can be relinquished, except those relating to the maintenance of discipline and efficiency.
The effect of the Clause is, broadly, that pay and conditions of service of member of brigades will in future continue to be a matter for collective bargaining between representatives of fire authorities and members of brigades through the joint negotiating machinery, and that decisions of the National Joint Councils will take effect hereafter without the approval of the Secretary of State.
The position then will be that as the decisions of the National Joint Councils will not be embodied in a Statutory Instrument, they will no longer be automatically binding on fire authorities. Members of brigades will, however, be safeguarded by Section 8 of the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act, 1959, which provides machinery, similar to that previously provided by the Industrial Disputes Order, 1951, for the settlement of "issues" between employers and workers.
Section 8 provides that where there are established conditions of employment in any trade or industry which have been settled as the outcome of negotiations between organisations representing a substantial proportion of the employers and workers concerned, and an employer fails to observe those conditions—this would cover the local authority which, my hon.


Friend suggested, might not honour or keep to the generally-recognised national rates—the Minister of Labour may, on the matter being reported to him, take suitable steps to settle the issue and, if necessary, refer it to the Industrial Court. An award by the Industrial Court requiring the employer to observe the recognised conditions of employment has effect as an implied term of the contract of employment.
Workers whose remuneration is governed by Statute are excluded from the operation of these provisions, which consequently do not at present apply to members of brigades. When, however, Section 17 of the Fire Services Act is amended as now proposed, members will automatically come within the ambit of this machinery for the settlement of "issues". So far as the fixing of their conditions of service is concerned, members of brigades will then be in a similar position to local government employees generally.
I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the existence of this safeguard. I am sure that there is not the slightest desire or intention by the councils representing either the employing authorities or the chief fire officers or those below that rank that there should be any move back to any individual or zonal rates. I am sure that they are determined to maintain the national standard for this important national service.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 6.—(APPOINTMENTS AND PROMOTIONS.)

Mr. Robert Jenkins: I beg to move, in page 3, line 45, after "paragraphs," to insert "(a)."

The Chairman: I think it would be for the convenience of the Committee also to discuss the Amendments in page 3, line 46, leave out from "appointment" to "shall" in line 1 on page 4 and insert:
and promotion of members of fire brigades),
and in page 4, line 5, at end add:
(2) A fire authority shall not appoint a chief officer of a fire brigade except after consultation with the Secretary of State.

Mr. Jenkins: Yes, Sir Charles.
These Amendments in the names of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon), the hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) and myself bring to light a fundamental point of local government. They would give effect to the policy of the Association of Municipal, Corporations and the County Councils Association, and I support them. The object is to prevent the Secretary of State from making regulations as to the method of appointment of chief fire officers and to require fire authorities to consult the Secretary of State before appointing a chief officer of a fire brigade.
The local authority associations whom I have mentioned, although I do not really represent them and I am certainly not their delegate, welcome the Bill as a measure towards the fulfilment of the promise made by the Government in the White Paper of July, 1957, entitled "Local Government Finance," to simplify and reduce Departmental control of local authorities.
In the debate in the House of Commons on 29th July, 1957, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government referred to the proposed review and said:
I give the House an undertaking that this review will be thorough, and that we shall be prepared to abolish or relax any controls over the freedom of local authorities to act as they think best, which cannot be shown to serve a useful purpose."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 29th July, 1957; Vol. 574, c. 935.]
If local authorities are responsible bodies, competent to discharge their own functions and exercise responsibility in their own right, one would have thought that they would be allowed to appoint their own staff without having to seek Ministerial approval. At the moment, they are free to appoint most of their chief officers without any such control: for example, the town clerk, the treasurer, the water engineer, the surveyor, the architect, the housing manager, and so on. Other than the chief constable, they have to receive approval from the appropriate Government Department for the appointment of chief education officers and children's officers, but these are being brought under review by the Government Departments concerned and consideration is being given to the abolition of the approval which is at present necessary.
Before the war, there was control in certain borough and county districts of the appointment of medical officers of health, and for a particularly good reason at that time. About ten years ago, however, that control was discontinued by the Minister of Health. In other words, the one chief officer concerned with housing for whom it was thought necessary to have control of his appointment in the hands of the Minister of Health, has been removed from this control since the war.
At a time when all other Departments have relinquished their powers to approve the appointment of local authority chief officers, I submit that the onus rests upon the Secretary of State to show, in the words of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Housing and Local Government, that his power of control over the appointment of chief fire officers serves "a useful purpose", if he seeks to retain this power in its present form, having regard to the other factors I have mentioned. I therefore ask whether the present arrangement for approval serves any purpose which prior consultation between the local authority and the Secretary of State could not equally serve.
The Government's case, which has been expressed in another place and in conversations, is that in a disciplined operational service like the first service it is vital to its operation in peace and war that every possible care should be taken to ensure the appointment of the right man as chief fire officer. There may be other arguments for retaining this power, but that is the principal one which has been put forward.
The Association of Municipal Corporations and the County Councils Association and many other bodies agree that it is important to appoint the right man for this job. They do not, however, agree that, merely because the fire service is a disciplined service, local authorities are less capable of making appointments than in any other local government service. Nor do they accept the fact that because of the interest of the Secretary of State in the fire service consequent upon his wartime responsibilities, it is necessary for him to have approval of the appointment of chief officers of fire brigades during peacetime.
The Government have stated on several occasions that there is an analogy between the appointment of a chief fire officer and his operations and the office of chief constable, whose appointment by the Secretary of State is at present similarly required to be approved.
1.30 p.m.
Chief constables, with great respect to the Joint Under-Secretary of State, are not servants of the local authority at all. Indeed, they have statutory powers and duties to perform over which the local authorities have no control. Therefore, in that respect, they are entirely different from the chief fire officers, who are entirely subject to the control of the authorities by whom they are appointed. There is the same relationship of master and servant between the local authority and the fire officer as there is between the authority and the various other chief officers appointed by it.
The argument about war time has been used, but many of the other chief officers would carry out duties in wartime at least as onerous and important as those of chief fire officers. In practice, as the Lord Chancellor has stated, in another place, the power of approval has not had to be used in the past ten years to reject a candidate selected by the fire authority. Not in the last ten years has there been any veto at all, particularly after the Home Office has had the opportunity of expressing views on a short list submitted by the fire authority.
I suggest, therefore, that the opinion of the Association of Municipal Corporations and of the County Councils Association is right—that there is no reason why such practice should not be continued, but it must be based on the concept of consultation, and this is where the third Amendment comes in. I am informed that the two associations would be prepared and glad to commend to their fire authority members that consultations should take place, and would be prepared to agree to that, but that it is voluntary consultation with the Home Office and with Her Majesty's Inspectors of Fire Brigades that ought to take place and not this compulsory submission of names and final approval.
I repeat that the Amendments touch local government substantially and deeply. Other Departments of State are returning


powers to local authorities and increasing their responsibilities. I think that a case can be made out that this handing back of the power to appoint a chief fire brigade officer is something which would not be contrary to the public interest. I ask the Committee to imagine the situation in which at present the London County Council is compelled to go to the Home Office for consent to and approval of the appointment of a chief fire brigade officer. It is absolutely ridiculous that that should be so.
Who are the best judges, the members of the fire brigade committee of the London County Council or somebody in the Home Office? Naturally, the matter would come to my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary eventually, but who can best decide it? I suggest that the trend of handing back responsibility to local authorities is being stopped in this one instance.
It has been shown in debate on several other Amendments today that the Government are handing back powers to local authorities. I believe that this is one which they could well hand back without any danger to the country, without any loss of prestige to themselves and with great advantage to the local authorities.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: I hope that it is not necessary to urge the hon. Lady the Joint Under-Secretary to resist the Amendment which was moved by the hon. Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins) with what I thought was a specious argument, if he will forgive me for saying so. I have already said that we on this side of the Committee regard the fire service as essentially a national service which is locally administered. We are to some extent already weakening its local character through financial provisions, and I would prefer not to weaken it further, which I think would be the case if the Amendments were accepted.
With great respect to the hon. Member for Dulwich, there is no analogy whatever between a chief fire officer and a housing manager, a librarian or a borough treasurer. It does not matter to one local authority what kind of librarian there is in a neighbouring local authority, but it matters to one fire authority what kind of chief officer is

in charge of the men and appliances of another authority. Therefore, I think it is essential that some control should be maintained by the Home Office over appointments of this kind.
I do not want to get involved in the rather difficult problem which the hon. Member raised about the exact status and position of a chief constable, but I regard the position of a chief fire officer as much more analogous to that of a chief constable than to that of a librarian or housing manager. It would not be enough for the Home Office merely to retain the right to have consultation with a fire authority before a chief officer was appointed. Presumably, on the hon. Member's suggestion, there can be consultation with the Home Office but the local authority could then snap its fingers at the Home Office and appoint exactly whom it wanted. I do not regard that as a satisfactory situation. I hope, therefore, that the hon. Lady will be quite firm and resist the Amendments entirely.

Mr. Rippon: I hope that my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary will adopt a sympathetic attitude towards the Amendments. What the hon. Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) has said follows quite logically from what he had been saying earlier today. I do not think that the Amendments are in any way out of line with the policy which the Government have adopted in the rest of the Bill. I said earlier that I thought it was accepted that district councils could no longer have a statutory right to nominate to a county council fire brigade committee, because I thought that function ought to be exercised as of right. I was then speaking for myself, but I believe that that is the view generally held in local government today.
The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who has great wisdom in these matters, was right when he stressed the importance of consultation. That is the right way of dealing with it. In the composition of committees, a county council can consult downwards and co-opt under its permissive powers, and that is a reasonable way of ensuring a high standard of service. Equally, there can here be consultation upwards, and there is no reason why the Home


Office should not be as satisfied with consultation in this case as district councils ought to be in the other.
I believe that where the responsibility directly lies it should be exercised by the authority making the appointments. I see, of course, the force of the argument about the fire service being a national service and how in an emergency it would have to be brought once again under central control but, as far as I can see, the Government have not carried it too far by allowing these relaxations. I cannot see why we cannot accept that the fire service is in that sense a national service and still leave the fire authority with the direct responsibility of making the appointment.
I should have thought that the appointment of a fire officer was at least analogous with the appointment of a medical officer of health, if not with the appointment of a librarian. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dulwich (Mr. Robert Jenkins) pointed out, that was a case where an appointment had to be confirmed because it was important to maintain a national medical standard. No doubt in a national emergency there would have to be all sorts of arrangements. Regional controllers might have to be appointed and perhaps there might have to be a suspension of local authority powers altogether. I do not think we should be led astray by that argument.
I hope that the hon. Lady will feel that it will be possible to allow the local authority to make the appointment subject to consultation. This would work just as well upwards as downwards.

Mr. Hannan: I, on the other hand, hope that the hon. Lady will resist the Amendment. It may seem strange that support for the Government is coming from this side of the House and opposition from her own side. This problem arises primarily out of the Government's action on the Local Government Bill. Representations were made by the Opposition, and refused, that the fire service should be regarded as a national service. If that had been accepted, these Amendments would not have been necessary.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon) argued that the fire master, as we call him in

Scotland, is analogous to the medical officer of health. That will not hold water in relation to this Bill. The Government have accepted the spirit of the fire service being a national service and the appointment of principal officers must be the responsibility of the Department.
Can the Under-Secretary of State for Scotland tell me what the procedure is in Scotland? Am I not right in saying that in Scotland the fire authorities must have the approval of the Department? That is what is being asked for in the Bill. Has the Secretary of State had any representations from local authorities in Scotland asking for any change in the proposals before us? I have not received any, and I think that local authorities in Scotland are satisfied that the procedure here should be similar to that by which chief constables are appointed, namely, with the approval of the Department.
The police service is analogous to the fire service in its national character. I want to emphasise that the fire service, unlike the police service, has been brought into the block grant against the desire of the service personnel. It is the job of the Government and their successors to ensure that the efficiency of the fire service, which has such a bearing on national economy, is preserved. If we go too far in upsetting arrangements for national appointments where people with responsibility can make quick decisions and act in the national interest it will be a retrograde step. The fundamental weakness lies in the Government's action in taking the fire service into the block grant.
I hope that the hon. Lady will be able to say something of some comfort to hon. Members on this side of the Committee.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Niall Macpherson): In answer to the first question that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) asked, I understand that the joint committees and Glasgow would submit a short leet to the Secretary of State for approval. They would then choose their fire master subject to the approval of the Secretary of State.
In answer to the second question, I can only say that the retention of the power was not queried by the associations.

1.45 p.m.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: My hon. Friends are trying to remove the statutory control which the Secretary of State exercises and replace it with a rather nebulous undefined method of consultation. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland believe that this is an absolutely key control and part of the necessary powers that they must have in being responsible for the overall efficiency of the fire service. My right hon. Friend has met representatives of the local authority associations and discussed this matter. We are aware of their views and have considered them carefully, but neither the Home Secretary nor the Secretary of State for Scotland feel able or justified in relinquishing what they believe is a very essential power which the Minister responsible for this very important national service must have.
The local authority associations have suggested consultation. We understand their desire to have control over the appointment of their own officers and we have no desire to interfere unnecessarily with their freedom in this field. We appreciate that local authorities have ample experience in the appointment of chief officers of various kinds, but there must be a clear distinction between chief officers in the fire service and chief officers in other local authority fields.
It is true that other local authority officers have functions of great importance and some of them are more senior in the local hierarchy than the chief fire officer, but the fire service is a disciplined uniformed service directly concerned with public safety, which, in the last resort, is very much the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.
Special considerations must arise in the appointment of an officer to command the brigade in each area. In addition to technical efficiency, chief fire officers need the kind of specialised qualities which enable a man to maintain discipline without impairing morale, which is of the greatest importance in maintaining the efficiency of the service.
With the greatest respect, from time to time one finds that there are local authorities, perhaps the smaller county authorities, who tend to take a parochial

attitude. They may know their own officers extremely well. In a particular case they may lean towards promoting a deputy who was known to them, and perhaps known locally, but who, so far as the efficiency of the brigade was concerned, had neither the experience nor the knowledge of an officer who was more qualified for that promotion from some other area, and of whose qualifications they had only the first sight when his application was submitted.
We believe that the Home Office, with its general knowledge of the fire service throughout the country, acquired through the Fire Inspectorate, is in a better position to judge of those qualities and is able to contribute essential and important information to prevent an unsuitable appointment. The purpose of the Secretary of State's approval is not in any way to secure the appointment of a particular candidate of the Secretary of State's choice, but to ensure that candidates who are unsuitable for the post are not appointed.
In practice, I agree that the Home Office proceed by way of preliminary informal consultation, and the Home Office indicates, on the basis of the short list, which candidates it considers unsuitable and which it considers suitable. So far there has been no case where the Secretary of State has found it necessary to make formal use of his power to reject the choice of a fire authority, although it has indicated, on the basis of the short list, that a particular individual would not be regarded as suitable. The fact that the power exists has undoubtedly influenced fire authorities in taking Home Office advice.
Local authorities cannot claim that their freedom has been unduly infringed in practice, or that the present system of informal prior consultation, with a statutory sanction in the background, has not worked smoothly. We all realise that if an emergency arises fire services would play a vital rôle, and it just is not good enough to say that they would then come under national control. We should have to rely upon the chief fire officers at that moment, in operation with their brigades, and although it is true that the service would be subject to a different form of organisation, we should be absolutely dependent upon the efficiency and skill of the existing fire officers.
A true comparison cannot be made between a chief fire officer and a civil defence officer. As I have responsibility in both spheres, I do not underestimate the excellent work done by civil defence officers, but although their functions are important they do not have statutory appointments. A civil defence officer is a member of a local authority staff, and is appointed to assist it in its civil defence functions, But he is not in command of a disciplined regular service. Civil defence controllers who are holders of part-time appointments in peace time, are also in a different category.
It has been suggested that consultations should be good enough, without the ultimate sanction of the Secretary of State's veto. In this respect I cannot do better than quote the excellent analysis of consultation used by my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor when the Bill was under discussion in another place. My noble Friend said:
Consultation is one of the most useful and most dangerous words in modern legislation. It is one of the most useful words because it is the easiest piece of paper to plaster in where there is a disagreement. Where the real question is, shall one side or the other have the right to veto? then you blur it over and say, No, there shall be consultation! All that consultation means in law is that one party will put forward its suggestion and the other party will consider it. But, of course, the second party is not in the least bound to adopt the suggestion or to go further than consider it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 18th June, 1959; Vol. 216, c. 1268.]
It is absolutely essential for the efficiency of what is a national service, though locally administered, that this key control should remain with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and with the Secretary of State for Scotland.
The decision to preserve this power is not at variance with the Government's declared policy to grant greater freedom to local authorities. The relaxation of central control is certainly part of Government policy, and the Bill has gone a long way in this direction, but during the negotiations on it it has always been made clear that the "key" controls vital to the efficiency of the service must be maintained. The members of the fire brigade services—both chief fire officers and the Fire Brigades Union—are against any suggestion that this control should be removed from the hands of the Secretary of State.
We believe that this is a key control, which is vital to the efficiency of the service, and that the operation of it restricts only very little the power and authority of local authorities. The manner in which it has worked has in no way been irksome to those authorities. I cannot accept the views of my hon. Friends that in regard to so valuable and disciplined a uniformed service the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State should give up this power, and I ask hon. Members not to agree to the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed. That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Reader Harris: The Clause does something besides dealing with the matters we have been discussing. It deletes from Section 18 (1, b) of 1947 Act, which gives the Home Secretary power to make regulations governing the procedure for the appointment of fire authority members other than a chief officer of a fire brigade. I am aware that the Home Secretary has never made regulations governing the procedure for the appointment of members of a brigade, but this is an important matter, which has engaged the attention of the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council during the last few years, because difficulties have arisen in regard to the promotion and appointment of fire brigade officers.
The right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) very rightly referred to the national aspects of this service—the need for unity and for the fire services to be regarded as a whole. One of the ways in which it was intended to achieve this was by giving the supervisory ranks in the fire brigades an opportunity of moving from one brigade to another, on promotion or otherwise, so that they would gain the widest possible experience. This would provide a chance for the best men to get on. For that reason the Advisory Council made a unanimous recommendation to the Home Secretary that fire authorities should be advised that when a vacancy occurred for an officer post that vacancy should be advertised within a certain zone if it was in respect of a station officer—that is to say, all the local authority fire brigades adjoining the area where the vacancy occurred were


to be informed—and on a national basis if the vacancy was in respect of a more senior officer.
Recommendations went out from the Home Secretary to fire authorities on this point, and it has been a matter of much regret that in the last year or two there has been no instance of fire authorities complying with this recommendation. This has led the Association of Fire Officers to think of going to the Home Secretary and asking him to make a regulation under the Section which is now being deleted by Clause 6.
I would not ask my hon. Friend to go back on the Clause now, but I want to bring this difficult matter to her notice and seek an assurance that she will give attention to this matter and bring all the pressure possible to bear on local authorities to give the widest field of promotion to those officers who want to get on and better themselves. After all, they are the people who set the tone for all the fire brigades throughout the country. It is important to keep the best men and to see that the best men have the best opportunities, and this can be done only if local authorities cooperate in this matter and observe to the letter the recommendations which have so far gone out from the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council.
I hope that it will not be necessary for regulations to be made, but I am a little sorry to see this sanction disappearing from the legislation. If my hon. Friend can give us an assurance on this point it will be helpful to all concerned in the fire services.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I am sure that my hon. Friend will not expect me to commit myself to giving additional new powers to those proposed under the Bill, but I am sure that note will be taken of the points raised by him. It is proper that any question of advice in regard to the method of appointment should be discussed and considered by the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council. In the new set-up we believe that this question is one which the employers on the one hand, and the two bodies, representing the officers and men in the brigades on the other, should discuss and work out for themselves.
I am sure that consideration will be given to the points that have been raised

by my hon. Friend, and I hope that he will accept my assurance that I will bring this matter and his views to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 7.—(ESTABLISHMENT SCHEMES.)

2.0 p.m.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: There is one point which I should like to put quite briefly to the hon. Lady, and which it is possible she may have dealt with in answer to one of the Amendments on Clause 1. As it appears to me, the existing arrangements make it impossible for a fire authority to increase its fire cover and establishment without previous approval. From time to time, I have had occasion in the House to criticise the way in which the Home Office has withheld approval. Now it will be possible for fire authorities to improve their fire cover without Ministerial approval, and we welcome that fact.
We welcome, too, the fact that it will no longer be possible for them to reduce their establishment—the number of fire appliances or the fire cover generally.
Can the hon. Lady tell us how the Home Secretary will ensure that a local fire authority will keep its establishment up to the requirement of the immediate situation in a locality? If, for example, there is an addition to the fire risk in an area, what will be the powers of the Home Secretary to ensure that the local fire authority is not wanting in that respect?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman the Member for Rossendale (Mr. Anthony Greenwood) for raising this matter, because I know that the fire brigade union has expressed some concern about how this Clause will operate.
At present brigade establishments, which lay down the number of fire stations, appliances and men to be maintained by an authority, have to be approved by the Secretary of State, and this has meant a very detailed control. I


am glad that the hon. Gentleman thinks that this particular control should go.
Under the new Clause approval is required only to certain reductions in establishment and subject to this, fire authorities will be free to vary their schemes. The Secretary of State will, however, retain the power to make a scheme if the scheme in force is unsatisfactory or inadequate. I think that this meets the hon. Gentleman's point. I know that in another place certain legitimate representations were made in relation to areas which have new populations coming in and there is a much larger catchment area to cover.
I believe that the Clause strikes a balance because it gives local authorities more discretion and makes the procedure more flexible. On the other hand, it gives the central Government power to ensure that there is no material reduction in the standard of fire cover and that the fire cover remains adequate in newly developing areas.
There is, I know, a certain anxiety in some quarters about the adequacy of the Secretary of State's powers in relation to fire cover, but I think, for example, that a fire authority failing to increase its establishment to the degree necessary to meet increased fire risks would come under the powers of the Secretary of State in regard to the provision of efficient and necessary cover for any given areas.
I would ask the hon. Gentleman to note that while the fire authorities will no longer have to seek the approval of the Secretaries of State to particular increases in establishments—this is one of the relaxations that we are effecting—the Secretaries of State are retaining the power at present given to them under the 1947 Act to intervene and make establishment schemes if the existing schemes appear to them to be unsatisfactory from the point of view of efficiency or inadequate for increasing areas, and they will be kept informed, in relation to the demand and the necessary cover a brigade can provide, by Her Majesty's Inspectors of Fire Services.
I assure hon. Members that we are alive to the necessity of keeping watch on growing areas, new towns and the like, and that this is one of the powers

which still resides with the Secretaries of State.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 8 and 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10.—(EMPLOYMENT AS TEMPORARY INSTRUCTOR.)

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I beg to move, in page 6, line 34, at the end to insert:
(a) for all purposes other than the purposes of the Firemen's Pensions Scheme; and
(b) if his employment is at a training centre maintained by a fire authority, also for the purposes of that Scheme.
When this Measure was adopted in another place, my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor announced that discussions were taking place with the local authorities associations about the financial arrangements which will operate for pension purposes when firemen are seconded for temporary duty as instructors at training stations maintained by the Secretary of State under the arrangements proposed in Clause 10. He gave an undertaking then that this matter would be very fully considered and that we were alive to certain concern felt by members of the brigade in relation to the Clause
This Amendment is the outcome of those negotiations and it has the agreement of all the interested parties. The effect of the Amendment is to provide that while for all other purposes a fireman will remain a member of his brigade on secondment to any training institution maintained by the Secretary of State, the Clause will not apply so far as pensions are concerned, and that the present pension arrangements, under which the Secretary of State becomes the pension authority during the period of temporary duty, will continue unaltered.
Where firemen are informally loaned from one brigade to another for any purpose, the lending authority remains responsible for pensions. It is considered that this practice, which has worked satisfactorily, should be continued as respects firemen seconded for temporary duty as instructors at training institutions maintained by local fire authorities.
I think that this meets the general representations made on this matter and honours the undertaking given by my right hon. Friend in another place.

Mr. Hannan: May I ask the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland whether what the hon. Lady has just announced applies to Scotland and why his name was not attached to the Amendment?

Mr. N. Macpherson: Yes, it does apply. There is no constitutional reason why my name should have been attached to the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 11 to 13 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 14.—(SHORT TITLE, CITATION, COMMENCEMENT, EXTENT AND REPEAL.)

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I beg to move, in page 7, line 25, to leave out subsection (5).
This is a Government Amendment of a purely formal character. Subsection (5), which provides that nothing in the Bill shall impose any charge on the people or on public funds or vary the amount or incidence of or otherwise alter any such charge in any manner, or affect the assessment, revenue, administration or application of any money raised by any such charge, is a formal provision, inserted in another place to avoid questions of Privilege.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

Bill reported, with Amendments; as amended, considered.

2.10 p.m.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
As the Second Reading of the Bill was got through in the minimum possible time I hope that I may claim the indulgence of the House in moving its Third Reading, because I think that on such an important Measure, which affects fire brigade officers throughout the country, it is necessary that we should have an opportunity of expressing

what the Bill sets out to do. I hope that hon. Members will bear with me for a few minutes while I outline the general principles and effects of the Measure as a whole.
The arrangements for the administration of the Service which were introduced by the Act of 1947—a form of partnership between local and central Government—have generally worked well and we have seen the establishment and consolidation of a highly efficient public fire service to which I am, and, I know, all hon. Members are, glad to be able to pay a public tribute.
The modification in the controls exercised by the Secretary of State under the 1947 Act are, as the House will be aware, proposed in the light of the cessation of the specific Exchequer grant of 25 per cent. which was first paid in 1947, and the introduction in the Local Government Act, 1958, and the corresponding Scottish Act of new financial arrangements by which the first service became one of the services to be aided by the general Grant. It was in view of this that the Government decided that the central controls over the fire service should be reviewed, and in conducting this review they have aimed at giving the local authorities a greater measure of freedom to run their brigades while at the same time securing that the central Government would retain those "key" controls which were considered essential for the maintenance of adequate standards of efficiency.
The Bill does, in fact, go a long way in increasing the extent of the discretion which fire authorities can exercise in the management of their affairs, and administrative steps, not requiring amendment of the law, have already been taken to relieve local authorities from the need to seek Departmental authority for expenditure in what are in many cases only day-to-day operations. This does not mean, however, as I have heard it suggested—and I emphasise this as strongly as I can—that my right hon. Friends will cease to take a close interest in the efficiency of the Service.
While fire authorities are being given greater freedom to exercise their responsibilities in their own areas it is right that the main structure of the post-war service should be retained. It has promoted a growing efficiency and it incorporates


lessons sometimes dearly learned in such matters as the provision of fire cover on a settled yet flexible plan, the extension of training facilities, the standardisation of hydrants and equipment and the regular discussion of problems common to the service through two Advisory Councils. Despite the relaxations effected in Clause 7 and the remaining provisions of the Bill, the Secretaries of State will retain various "key" controls.
At an earlier stage this morning, I mentioned the very vital controls which are, in effect, to be retained by my right lion. Friends, particularly that in regard to reduction of establishment and others in regard to the standardisation of equipment, etc. Moreover, my right hon. Friends have eyes in the shape of Her Majesty's inspectors of fire services, and very good eyes they are, too—indeed, I think that all who are concerned with the fire service would join with me in paying tribute to the way in which they have worked for the betterment of the service throughout the country since 1948—and I am sure that Her Majesty's inspectors can be relied upon to bring to our notice any instance of possible inefficiency arising from a failure to develop fire establishments to meet increasing fire risks.
As I have said previously, in formulating the proposals now before the House, the Government have tried very sincerely to strike a balance between reasonable relaxation of controls on the one hand, and the retention of necessary controls on the other. We believe that we have succeeded—that a just balance has been struck. We realise, of course, that when we are negotiating matters we can never satisfy everyone wholly, but we believe that the negotiations have been conducted wholly in the spirit of the best interests of the service, that, indeed, there has been a fair give and take and that we have struck a reasonable balance in the Bill.
We believe that in this crowded island we have the most comprehensive fire service in the world—that our firemen, who are often called upon to risk their lives, are a highly trained and wonderful body of men and women. Under the arrangements proposed in the Bill, I am confident that not only will none of the efficiency of the service be lost, but that it will continue, as it has done since

the war, to improve the standard of the protection which, sometimes dramatically, sometimes with unobtrusive diligence, it offers to us all.

2.25 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Like the hon. Lady the Parliamentary Secretary, I shall set an admirable example of brevity to the House, but I think it would be a pity to let the Bill go without paying a tribute not only to the inspectors of the fire services, to whom the hon. Lady rightly referred, but also to the men who man our fire brigades. They are, I think, a body of men who enjoy the unqualified admiration of the whole population. They follow a calling which involves a great deal of personal courage and also a great deal of interference with the ordinary family life that most people like to live.
Theirs is an arduous and, I think, not an overpaid calling, and the least that we can do on an occasion like this is to express our admiration of the men who constitute the fire services of the country. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Rippon), who seemed to think that the hon. Lady was under fire this morning, should not have stayed for the Third Reading debate so that he might join in paying a tribute to the hon. Lady for the way in which she has piloted the Bill through the House and also to the men and women of the fire service.
I do not think that I need elaborate upon it, but we have on a number of occasions, and particularly last year, expressed the Labour Party's disagreement with the provisions of the Local Government (Financial Provisions) Bill. We do not like the block grant. We think it may well tend to militate against the efficiency of the service, which is not a very personal service, and we have misgivings as to the possible repercussions on the fire service. Therefore, we would have liked the fire service to be put in the same position as the police. But the House in its wisdom decided on the other course of action, and until we are in a position to remedy that mistake we shall welcome the Bill because it goes a considerable way to meet the criticisms which the Fire Brigades' Union and members of my party have put forward.
During the course of the discussion today the hon. Lady has been most


helpful. She has given us a number of explanations and assurances which I think have comforted the critics of the Bill considerably, and we shall now say goodbye to the Measure with rather lighter hearts than we should have done had we not had the discussion and the assurances to which the hon. Lady has treated us.

2.29 p.m.

Mr. Reader Harris: This is not a Bill which I am glad to welcome, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will understand that the best that I can do is to give some rather begrudging recognition to the fact that it is something which the Government probably had to do and have probably done as well as they could in the circumstances. However, we now have the Bill, and, of course, it marks the end of a chapter in the life of the fire service. The new chapter may be better or it may be worse. We do not yet know.
I would merely say that I hope that the Home Office will continue to exercise the maximum amount of control that it possibly can and will not exercise the minimum amount of control. By and large, the intervention of the Home Office, and, of course, of the Secretary of State for Scotland, in 1941 was wholly beneficial to the fire service. Particularly was this so in Scotland. I remember that in 1947, when we were discussing the end of the National Fire Service, there was a big meeting at the Home Office, presided over by the then Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), with the right hon. Member for Southwark (Mr. Isaacs), who was Minister of Labour, on his right, and on his left the right hon. Member for Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn), who was Secretary of State for Scotland. The meeting began at half-past ten in the morning and at twenty-five minutes to eleven representatives of the Scottish local authorities said, "We do not wish to participate in any negotiating machinery or any other sort of advisory machinery. We in Scotland want our own machinery."
When the meeting broke up in some sort of disorder I got in touch with the representatives of my association in Scotland, the fire officers, and I said,

"The local authorities now want to have their own machinery for negotiating conditions of service. I presume that that will suit you?" I shall never forget the reply. It was, "We are horrified at what has happened. In Scotland we never had decent conditions under the local authorities until the Home Office laid down conditions of service from Whitehall." That marked a new chapter for the fire brigades in Scotland and, indeed, in many other parts of Britain.
The intervention of the Home Office during the last eighteen years has on the whole been all to the good. Therefore, it is not with any great enthusiasm that now I have to watch the Home Office beginning to relax its control. I hope that it will keep an eye on the fire brigades, because it may well be that another national emergency will occur and it will be necessary again to nationalise the fire service. If that should happen—we all hope that it will not—and the Government have to nationalise the fire service, I am sure that they would wish to nationalise a service which was more efficient than was the case previously.
I expressed the need for this to the hon. Lady the Joint Under-Secretary at a dinner recently which she did the officers of the association the honour of attending. With her permission, I will repeat once again something that I said on that occasion and which, I think, ought to go on the record so that those members of the public who take the trouble to read HANSARD can know about it. I refer to the report of the delegation to Japan after the last war to inspect the results of the atom bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The British Commission consisted of 10 representatives of the Home Office, one from the Government of India, one from the Admiralty, one from the War Office, two from the Air Ministry and one from the Ministry of Aircraft Production. It reported:
Both in Hiroshima and Nagasaki the scale of the disaster brought city life and industry virtually to a standstill. Even the most destructive conventional attacks, the incendiary raids on Hamburg in the summer of 1943 and on Toyko in the spring of 1945, had no comparable effect in paralysing communal organisation. Witnesses reported a panic flight of population, in which officials and civil defence personnel joined"—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles MacAndrew): Order. I cannot see what this has to do with the Third Reading of the Bill.

Mr. Reader Harris: It has this to do with it, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I am trying to ensure that we have a national fire service so far as possible, even if it is under local authority control. I hope that I shall not be ruled out of order. I am anxious not to be out of order, but I wish to stress that after the last war the Commission which went to Japan reported that local services were unequal to dealing with the disaster, either immediately or later, and that planned and energetic action on the part of the central Government is essential. Such a situation may arise again and I am concerned to ensure that the fire brigades shall be ready for such an eventuality.

2.26 p.m.

Mr. Hannan: I am not aware of the meeting referred to by the hon. Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. Reader Harris), where there were expressions of disapproval about the conditions in the fire service and particularly about local authorities in Scotland. There was no great rush to leave the fire service, not even in 1947. It may be that at the beginning of the war the conditions were bad but certainly not in 1947 which I understood was what the hon. Gentleman was referring to.

Mr. Reader Harris: I should have said up to the time of the war.

Mr. Hannan: At the beginning of the war there was pressure to improve the standards which, generally speaking, were low. Men were living on the premises all the time with perhaps only a half-day off in the week, and I agree that the conditions then cannot be compared with the conditions of today. In saying that, I do not mean to suggest that present-day conditions are the best possible.
Under the provisions of the Bill local authorities are being given responsibility for maintaining standards of efficiency. If there is one body of men anxious to maintain efficiency it is the Fire Brigades' Union. In the present economic circumstances of the country, with the need for the maintenance of exports and the provision of factories as well as the need to preserve imported raw materials, it

recognises the utmost importance of providing the maximum protection against fire. I know that the union will prompt any local authorities which are likely to fall by the wayside in this respect.
That is not to say that Government Departments should escape responsibility. We are giving the right to local authorities to use men and equipment for purposes other than the primary purpose of providing protection against fire. I am not happy about this. We have expressed our views about it and it is something which will need to be watched carefully. Another relaxation about which I am doubtful is that relating to reinforcements schemes. There was one great benefit which resulted from the creation of the National Fire Service, indeed it was the raison d'être for its formation, and that was the need to create reinforcements which the state of emergency had made vitally necessary.
I shall never forget the most frustrating experience that we had during the war on Clydebank and Greenock, when I was serving in the fire service and where I met with minor injuries. We turned up with equipment which we could not use because the local hydrant was of a different type, a ball hydrant, and we had the instantaneous or bayonet type hose fastening. We were reminded of Rob Wilton's grim though humorous monologue, in which he acts as a fireman carrying on a telephone conversation with a caller who has given a fire alarm, and ends by saying, "Well, just keep it going until we get there". That was what we had to do on this occasion; we had to stand by and watch.
I hope that the Government Department will pay attention to this matter, because according to the report of the Inspector General in Scotland, for example, the position is that only about 39 per cent. of the country's hydrants are standard in all respects and with the addition to those to which outlet adaptations have been applied the figure is 64 per cent. of all hydrants.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: May I help the hon. Gentleman by telling him that one of the powers retained by the Secretary of State is to make regulations to maintain and provide for the uniformity of fire hydrants?

Mr. Hannan: I am grateful to the hon. Lady. The essential point is that the paragraph finishes saying:
Some brigades have adopted a policy which enables the end of the period to be foreseen. It would be comforting to see that policy adopted by all brigades.
The Inspector-General is really saying there, "For goodness' sake get on with the job." It is a long time since the end of the war, when this problem first cropped up. We must get a reform of these conditions throughout the country.
An important Clause that we did not debate at any great length is Clause 7, in which we deal with manpower and adequate fire cover. This is another matter which was outstanding before the war. I would remind the Secretary of State for Scotland, in amplification of what I was saying earlier on the subject of water supplies, of a report which appeared in the Scotsman of 27th June, 1959. Reporting a fire in the north of Scotland among 50 acres of fir trees, it stated:
As there are not water on the estate—owned by the Moray Estates Development Company—the tenders fought the blaze two at a time while the other two went to Alves, half a mile from the fire, to refill their tanks.
I am very anxious about all these things, and so is the fire service. We would like to be assured that local authorities in the new areas springing up in the north of Scotland, where various small industries are growing up and where, in the countryside, mechanisation is taking place to a greater degree than ever before, realise that the risk of fire is increasing. I hope that local authorities will see to it that their fire protection services are maintained at a very high level. We want this service to be the foremost in the world. I am glad that we have had an opportunity of expressing these views to the Government.

2.34 p.m.

Mr. N. Macpherson: I would make it clear that, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, the Bill does nothing to impair the efficiency of the fire service. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) rather gave the impression from his opening remarks that the removal of one of the powers of the Secretary of State and of the Home Secretary to prescribe standards of efficiency would interfere with the efficiency of the

service. I can assure the House that that is not so.
In point of fact, that power has not been used. All that the Clause does, as my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Office said earlier, is to substitute for the power that previously existed an additional power which already exists in the Local Government Act and the corresponding Act for Scotland. It was useless to have the two powers existing similarly at the same time. We intend to rely upon the one in the Local Government Act instead of upon the other. I would assure the hon. Gentleman and the House that there will be no relaxation of the general responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland and of the Home Secretary for the efficiency of the service.
The question of use of equipment has already been fully dealt with but it is well to remember that existing legislation only prescribes that reference has to be made to the Secretary of State before any standing arrangements are made for the use of equipment for services other than fire fighting. As my hon. Friend has said, we are quite certain, after the experience gained, that we can rely upon the discretion and wisdom of the fire authorities to make certain that all equipment and services are maintained for their primary use and are not dissipated for other uses.
On reinforcement schemes, adequate powers are contained in Clause 2. There is not the slightest reason to suppose that there will be any diminution of the efficiency of the service.
On water supplies, there are parts of Scotland where water is difficult to obtain just as there are parts where it is all too easy to get and we have too much of it. No doubt the hon. Member for Maryhill is aware that the question he raised is being looked at at the present time. I hope that we shall be able to satisfy him that we are doing the best we can.
I thank the House for the general welcome that has been given to the Bill, even though my hon. Friend the Member for Heston and Isleworth (Mr. R. Harris) did not feel able to give it an unqualified welcome. The Bill goes a long way in the direction that the Government have sought of giving the maximum possible powers to local authorities


without in any way interfering with the efficiency of the service.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

WEEDS BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Finlay.]

Committee upon Monday next.

DOG LICENCES BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Finlay.]

Committee upon Monday next.

CONSOLIDATION, &c., BILLS

Lords Message [2nd July] communicating the Resolution, That it is desirable that, in the present Session, all Bills for re-enacting in the form in which they apply to Scotland the provisions of an existing statute be referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation, &c, Bills, to be considered forthwith.—[Mr. Legh]

Lords Message considered accordingly.

Resolved,

That this House doth concur with the Lords in the said Resolution.—[Mr. Legh.]

Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

CROPS (SPRAY DAMAGE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Finlay.]

2.38 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Braine: I am glad, Mr. Speaker, that you have accorded me this opportunity of raising a matter which concerns a number of my constituents who are horticulturists, as well as horticulturists elsewhere in the country.
We all welcome the way in which the scientist has been coming to the aid of the farmer. One of the most exciting and significant developments of modern times has been man's increasing capacity to make two or three or even four blades of grass grow where only one grew before. Recent years have seen the introduction, on an ever-increasing scale, of chemicals for the purpose of controlling pests and weeds and thereby increasing crop yields. Undoubtedly, great benefits flow from the use of these new materials. But my hon. Friend will have had the opportunity of studying that authoritative book "Weed Control" published by the British Weed Council, whose president, I understand, is Chief Scientific Officer to his Ministry. That book frankly admit that these materials have been introduced so quickly that this has
resulted in a situation where often those intimately connected with the subject cannot readily keep in touch with the new developments.
Quite serious disadvantages have begun to flow from the use of these materials on the farm. It behoves us all, I suggest, to retain a little humility in this matter, since man is never quite able to assess the damage he does When he seeks to discipline Nature. The truth of this has been recognised for a long time. My hon. Friend will, no doubt, remember that Horace warned us:
If you drive Nature out with a pitchfork, she will soon find a way back.
How is it possible, for example, in the case of pesticides, those chemical substances used to destroy harmful birds and insects, to ensure that harm is not done to useful birds and insects which get in the way? It is not possible. Useful birds and insects are being destroyed,


and one day we shall have to count the cost.
Where weed killing chemicals are concerned, a different kind of problem arises. These chemicals, usually of the plant hormone type, are selective in their application. That is to say, they have the capacity to destroy weeds growing with the crop plant without destroying the crop plant itself. There is no doubt that for this purpose the chemicals are very effective indeed. They are a wonderful boon to the farmer and their use is bound to grow as the years go on. As my hon. Friend knows, weed killers of this type are used in the cornfields and are based on two chemicals, popularly known as 24D and MCPA. They are available in either powder or liquid form. When in powder form, they are applied by powder blowers or manure distributors. When in liquid form, the usual method is to mix the concentrate with water and to spray mechanically.
When applied as a wet spray, two distinct methods of application can be used. First, there is the high volume method where a given amount of concentrate, say one or two 1b. of material, is applied per acre in a comparatively large quantity of water, perhaps 50 to 100 gallons. Then there is the low volume method where exactly the same amount of concentrate is applied over the same area, but diluted with very much less water, say 10 to 15 gallons.
My hon. Friend will know that in high volume application the droplet size of the liquid will be much larger than is the case in low volume application, where the spray becomes a mist. In low volume spraying, obviously it becomes very difficult indeed, if there is the slightest breeze, to prevent the droplets drifting considerable distances with the wind, and there is always the danger that different crops on neighbouring land may receive the spray and be damaged by it. The same danger exists with chemicals distributed in powder form.
My hon. Friend knows well that grave damage has been caused, and is being caused, to tomato crops both in the open and under glass, to lettuce, to top fruit and a wide variety of valuable horticultural products over wide areas of the country. Growers in my constituency have been seriously affected, and in the

corn-growing areas of the country as a whole people have lost whole crops of tomatoes, lettuce and blackcurrants, with consequent financial loss. Many private gardens are also affected. There, of course, not a great deal is known about the extent of the damage because people are quite unable to attribute the cause for their failing crops. They do not yet realise what is happening.
The difficulty is that damage may be caused to susceptible plants by relatively minute quantities of spray. I shall give an illustration. Take a common weed with which we are infested in Essex and which we call "fat hen". In more polite parts of the county the weed is known as Good King Henry. "Fat hen" is strongly susceptible to 24D sprayed in a dose equivalent to a mere 5 oz. of material over a whole acre. In other words, no more than half an ounce of this deadly weed-killing chemical is enough to eradicate "fat hen" over an area of almost 500 square yards. It is not surprising, therefore, if an infinitesimal amount of this spray happens to drift over the hedges to a susceptible crop in adjoining fields or seeps under open glass on a nearby holding where it can do very serious damage. Even if spray drift does not kill the plant outright, growth and cropping is often affected to a commercially disastrous extent.
Thus, wherever these chemical sprays are used, danger is present and the danger is at its greatest where farms are intermixed with horticultural holdings growing a wide range of susceptible crops. This in the case of south-east Essex, although the problem is also serious in certain other areas of the country. I do not wish to make the claim that the problem is more acute in south-east Essex than anywhere else, but it is acute enough for very grave concern to have been expressed to me on more than one occasion by our local growers. It may be of interest to my hon. Friend to know that the seriousness of the problem is underlined by the number of hon. Members who have been to me in the last two or three days saying how delighted they are that you, Mr. Speaker, have given me the opportunity of raising the subject because it is a matter also of concern to them and to their constituents.
Unfortunately, we have no certain way of knowing just how widespread the


damage is and how great is the problem with which we are dealing. Where there is serious loss, the grower informs the National Farmers' Union and if he is a producer of tomatoes or cucumbers he informs the Tomato and Cucumber Marketing Board. In some cases he informs the National Agricultural Advisory Service. But many cases are not detected in the sense that damage is only partial, while many cases are settled by growers "over the hedge" with their neighbours and while this is a satisfactory method so far as it goes, it means that many cases do not figure in the statistics at all.
I am told that so far this year the National. Farmers' Union has been advised of eighteen cases, spread from Suffolk to Monmouthshire and from Lincolnshire to Sussex. No fewer than half of these came from my own county of Essex. The Tomato and Cucumber Marketing Board has advised me that it had had thirty-six cases notified to it up to 30th June this year, all of which concerned crops grown under glass. This figure of thirty-six for the first six months of this year compares with twenty-five cases for the whole of 1958. and twenty-three in 1957.
I recognise, and I am sure that growers recognise, that there are acute difficulties in finding a remedy. First, there is the difficulty of proving the culprit, since if the conditions are suitable on adjoining farms, spraying may take place on a number of those farms on the same day, and spray is known to drift for considerable distances of up to a mile.
Secondly, there is the difficulty of diagnosis, of being absolutely certain that the damage has been caused by a particular chemical. Thirdly, there is the difficulty of separating the direct effect of the spray drift upon a particular plant from possible indirect effects, such as making a plant more susceptible to fungus diseases. Finally, there is the difficulty of assessing the extent of the damage, since the full effects may not be known, and often are not known, until the end of the growing season.
My hon. Friend knows better than most hon. Members that this damage can cause acute embarrassment and even hardship to growers, who have a diminished crop through no fault of their own and who lack the liquid capital to

enable them to tide over until the next growing season. He must know that their anxiety is all the greater since it is well known that only a small proportion of the reported cases will ever be settled in a satisfactory fashion. My information is that not more than one in every four of the cases reported this year to the Tomato and Cucumber Marketing Board will receive compensation. That is because of the obvious difficulty of establishing responsibility for spray drift.
What can be done to meet this distressing situation? I would not be dogmatic about this. I am raising the matter today in the hope that we can make a constructive approach to the whole problem. There are two obvious courses which I hope that the Ministry will take. First, it is clear that much more must be done, and done soon, to devise practical methods of protecting growers and compensating them for the damage sustained. As far as I can discover, nothing has been done in this direction up to now. There has been a great deal of talk and there have been many conferences and exchanges of view, but as yet nothing practical has emerged. Secondly, there is a crying need for much more to be done in the field of research in order to ascertain how these chemical materials operate. Are they being applied in too great a concentration? Are there new and improved techniques which could be used and which would reduce these disastrous effects? We need research also into the effects upon susceptible plants.
There is also a need for education. Maybe in this respect the Ministry can lay its hand on its heart and say, "We have done quite a lot in this direction to bring home to those who use these materials, and those who may be affected by them, what is at stake." I am told that if every farmer applied the knowledge which now exists the damage could be sharply reduced. For example, if spray pressures were reduced from the more normal 30 lb. to the square inch to 10 or 15 lb. to the square inch and if the most recently developed nozzles were employed, the droplet size would be much larger and drift less likely.
I do not say that the Ministry have not been undertaking education, but I hope to hear from my hon. Friend that


the Ministry is prepared to do a great deal more to supplement the efforts being made in this direction by the National Farmers' Union. I understand that the Essex Branch of the union, in conjunction with the Agricultural Research Council, has taken the initiative in promoting a certain amount of research. Hitherto the emphasis has been on producing ever-better chemicals for the purpose of eradicating weeds, but research which is now being undertaken, I am told, is directed towards finding out much more about the effect of chemical sprays upon susceptible crop plants. I am told that very useful work is being done on vegetables at the Wellesbourne Research Station and that work is being done on tomatoes at Nottingham University. Perhaps my hon. Friend will say something about that and about the necessity for still more research along those or different lines.
The House will appreciate the need for additional research of this kind, if only to help the victims of spray damage. There is no doubt that damage is being inflicted. There is no doubt that it is becoming increasingly difficult to prove who has caused the damage. A remedy at common law is therefore rarely available. I am advised that out of all the known cases, liability can be established completely in only about one out of every ten.
I am told that the victim very often has to incur an expenditure of £50 to £100 in order to take a case to court. Experts have to be employed, photographs have to be taken and the damage has to be traced backwards across the fields from hedgerow to hedgerow to its source. The local conditions have to studied in great detail. All that costs money. It is asking a man to undertake a gamble if he has to spend £50 to £100 in order to recover, say, £200 or £250, especially when his net income may be no more than £500 to £700 a year. In other words, if a case is not absolutely cast-iron and is not half admitted, before it is started, by the man who has caused the damage, then the chances of a remedy at common law are negligible.
It is true that the grower can take out an insurance, but in my view insurance premiums taken for this purpose are a most unjust levy upon one section of

farmers in order that another section of farmers may increase their yields and their profits. In any event, in Essex we are finding that the insurance companies do not like this kind of selective risk business. I do not want to say too much about this aspect, but the companies sometimes refuse to take the business, and almost invariably they impose onerous conditions. If we can improve the existing methods of diagnosis of the cause of spray damage to a particular crop, or devise new methods of diagnosis, the case for some kind of machinery which will ensure that fair compensation can be paid for proven cases becomes that much stronger.
That brings me to what many in the industry and in my own constituency think that the Minister should do. My hon. Friend knows that the National Farmers' Union has suggested that there should be a fund for this purpose, to be raised by levying a small surcharge on spraying material. This would not make any difference to manufacturers' sales. It would not affect their exports. Having regard to the level of likely claims, it would involve a total of not much more than £50,000 a year, or a few pence per acre of crops sprayed. This seemed to me to be an eminently sensible idea, but it has been turned down by the Ministry. Why has it been turned down? Is it because the Ministry lack the power to compel the manufacturers to set up a fund of this nature? We are entitled to know.
There are thirty-seven firms manufacturing hormone-type weed killers. Industrialists are not fools. They are usually sensitive to any suggestion, that their products are causing damage and would lean over backwards to avoid legislation compelling them to do what any fair-minded person thinks is right and just. If there are elements among the manufacturers who are being un-co-operative, it is about time that the Ministry got tough with them. One of the purposes of Parliament is to give voice to the legitimate grievances of Her Majesty's subjects. This most valuable section of the community—hard working, usually very self-reliant, contributing about one-tenth of the total output of our leading industry—is suffering injury, and it knows that the injury is bound to grow, but in the majority of cases justice is being denied.
The Ministry is in grave danger of laying itself open to the charge that it is indifferent to this problem. I do not believe that that is the case, and I hope that my hon. Friend will make it absolutely plain that it is not the case and that vigorous steps will be taken to devise a suitable voluntary scheme for compensation, in default of which it may be necessary to use some form of compulsion.
There is another related problem which is causing concern and about which far too little is known. I refer to the effect of these chemical substances upon the bird and insect life of this country. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Lewes (Colonel Beamish), whose interest in this matter is well known to the House, has already raised the question. The Royal Society for the Protection of Birds informs me that birds, including game birds, are being destroyed in large numbers by the use of chemical sprays, though in the nature of things it is almost impossible to assess the extent of the loss. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Horncastle (Commander Maitland) told me only yesterday that constituents of his had been expressing anxiety on the same point. This is a subject on which Parliament cannot be indifferent, because only a few years ago we legislated in order to protect the wild birds of this country.
I understand also that useful insects are being affected on an increasing scale. Only last week in my own county of Essex it was reported that one million bees died. How one assesses the exact number of bees which have died I do not know, but it was reported that a million bees had died flying to their hives from bean fields sprayed with a pesticide designed to get rid of blackfly. At any rate large numbers of hives were destroyed in Essex last week. It may be that the widespread use of pesticides is inflicting grave and irreparable damage to the wild life of this country. Certainly my hon. Friend will agree with me that widespread slaughtering of bees is bound to have an injurious effect upon food production.
In my view, the time is overdue for the Ministry to undertake some field investigations to establish the facts. It may be that the danger is exaggerated.

It may be that the danger is far worse than any of us suspect. What are the facts? I hope that my hon. Friend will give us an assurance that some investigation will be carried out.
It is not as though these materials are not known to have these effects. A Shell Chemical Company advertisement appeared in the Farmer and Stockbreeder a year or two ago depicting pigeons pecking at various crops. It reads:
Pigeons on your mind. Evidence has accumulated to suggest that pigeons are allergic to Dieldrex 15, the dieldrin-based insecticide for 'fly' and other insect pests. It's a fascinating possibility and one which we are investigating. A number of enterprising farmers have also decided to give pigeons a run for their Dieldrex this coming summer. You may think it worth trying too—pigeons are real crop-wreckers and Dieldrex 15 is very inexpensive. We offer no prizes but shall be delighted to receive progress reports from anti-pigeon pioneers.
Scientists are mighty men, and the great Shell organisation is powerful, efficient and enterprising, but if their chemicals can kill pigeons they will kill other birds, too, and I should have thought that a little more thought might have been given before such a product as that was advertised, to the likely consequences of using such material on our farms. I suggest that more attention should be given to the legal aspect of using these materials, because if it is wrong for anybody to destroy our protected wild birds by shooting or snaring, it is also wrong to destroy them by spraying chemical substances which the manufacturers know in advance must have that effect.
The Protection of Birds Act, 1954, lays down that any person who
… wilfully kills, injures or takes, or attempts to kill, injure or take, any wild bird …
is guilty of an offence.
Here we have a case in which it is known that materials used in agriculture may kill certain wild birds and insects, and which, therefore, is certain to kill all the birds and insects. I hope that my hon. Friend will tell us what protection a manufacturer, spray contractor or farmer has if anyone sues him under the 1954 Act.
I hope that my hon. Friend will appreciate that my purpose this afternoon has not been merely to focus attention upon a problem that concerns my constituents


alone, but upon one which, in the nature of things, must grow. In short, I am raising this matter in the hope that I shall be able to get him to agree that a far greater degree of urgency should be injected into the consideration of this important matter.

3.8 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Essex, South-East (Mr. Braine) for raising this subject; and, if I may say so, for the thoughtful and very constructive way in which he has dealt with it. I certainly realise that it is a matter that is causing a good deal of concern, particularly in south-east Essex, but in other parts of the country as well.
My hon. Friend rather took my breath away in his opening phrases by the facility with which he quoted Horace in support of his argument. In the short time that has been available to me, I have not been able to find a suitable quotation from Horace with which to reply but, if Virgil will suffice him, I would say:
Pater ipse colendi haud facilem esse viam voluit, primusque per artem movit agros.
I know that neither he nor the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) will need any translation of that, but for the benefit of others, perhaps I may translate it—

Mr. Ede: Is not that rather a reflection on Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Godber: Mr. Speaker, of course, must be included in those who do not need a translation, which would be:
The Great Father himself willed that the path of husbandry should not be smooth, and he first made art awaken the fields.
My hon. Friend has raised a number of points with which I should like to deal as far as I can. There is no doubt that chemical sprays have played a considerable part in the increased yield being obtained by our farmers. Indeed, they are becoming a more and more important tool in their hands and, provided they are properly handled and applied, do not present a major hazard.
Chemical manufacturers, farmers and spraying contractors are generally play-

ing their part in a responsible manner. The chemical industry co-operates fully with my Ministry in a voluntary scheme that enables the Advisory Committee on Poisonous Substances used in Agriculture to consider, and make recommendations about, any new toxic chemical or, indeed, the new use of an old one. The recommendations are about the safe use of the chemicals and cover the men who do the spraying, the people who eat the treated crop, and any wild life that may be affected. I will come back later to the question of wild life which was raised by my hon. Friend. In spite of the work of this Committee, however, some aspects of the use of toxic sprays in agriculture remain controversial.
The main difficulties relate to the spray drift problem raised by my hon. Friend, and are most frequently caused by the drift of hormone weed killers. The use of these sprays is growing, and in areas of mixed agriculture and horticulture damage is liable to occur from the careless use of sprays. Such damage can be serious—I quite agree with my hon. Friend—particularly in view of the high value of many horticultural crops. I think that the problem is probably greater in Essex than in any other area, although, as my hon. Friend has said, it certainly is not confined to that county alone.
I agree that the most important steps to improve the position are through research, education and advice. The Ministry has done all it can to bring home the dangers to those who engage in spraying, and it is being backed up by the National Farmers' Union and bodies like the Weed Control Council, on which are represented farmers, contractors, manufacturers and the National Agricultural Advisory Service. An advisory leaflet has been prepared and has been sent to individual farmers in the areas where damage is most likely to occur. It is a helpful leaflet, and if farmers will study it and follow the recommendations I am sure that it will help to minimise these cases.
The problem has also been examined by the Agricultural Research Council which is intensifying its work on the subject. A grant has been made to the University of Nottingham for the study of cases of spray drift damage which may point to remedial measures. The


report may lead to the use of sensitive species as indicator plants to show the presence of spray drift and possibly to trace back from the damaged crop the source of the spray. That point arises particularly in connection with some of the problems to which my hon. Friend referred.
My hon. Friend will be glad to know also that the National Institute of Agricultural Engineering is investigating the behaviour of spray after it is discharged. The Institute is also working on the design of spraying machines, particularly on nozzle designs and spray pressures, which are points of very great importance as my hon. Friend has made clear, to try to amend them to reduce spray drift, and on methods of controlling droplet size. That is a very important matter and I hope that these studies will lead to safer methods of spraying.
My hon. Friend has spoken about the question of compensation. Where the source of the damage is known, the grower affected can claim against the person responsible for the spraying; but I agree that occasionally the source of the damage cannot be identified. This creates formidable difficulties to the growers concerned, although the number of cases that have come to our knowledge is certainly not large.
My hon. Friend quoted a ratio of about one in four cases occurring this year which he thought might not be capable of being traced. But the figure that has been given to us at the Ministry is far nearer one in ten. So there is a considerable divergence of opinion. Even so, I do not dispute that this is an important matter.

Mr. Braine: There is an apparent discrepancy. When I referred to a ratio of one in four I was referring solely to tomatoes and cucumbers. The ratio of one in ten relates to the whole field of horticultural production.

Mr. Godber: I realise that tomatoes and cucumbers are peculiarly suspectible and that there is a special problem there. On the other hand, particularly at this time of the year, they are grown in glasshouses, and I should have thought it was possible, if there were some co-operation in the locality, for the owners of glasshouses to be careful with their ventilation

on days when spraying takes place. If only they could receive notification from those proposing to use sprays, a great deal of the damage in glasshouses could be obviated. I say that with some little knowledge of the crop.
A great deal of thought has been put into this whole question, both by the leaders of the industry and by ourselves. In fact, the Ministry have held a good number of discussions with the N.F.U. on the problem. Several solutions have been put forward, but so far none of them appears to be practicable for all the parties concerned. The idea of a levy scheme upon either the manufacturers' sales or upon farmers using the sprays, which my hon. Friend mentioned, is one of these. We discussed this suggestion with both the manufacturers and the N.F.U., but I am told that representatives of both these bodies, after discussion, did not consider the idea practicable.
It was not a question of the Ministry turning it down, and I can assure my hon. Friend that that is so. It may be, of course, that farmers may have been willing to agree to a levy on manufacturers and that manufacturers would have agreed to a levy on the farmers, but neither, as I understand it, was willing to join together in some agreed scheme.
My hon. Friend spoke about the respective merits of voluntary action by the industry and some form of compulsion or pressure brought about by the Government. In our studies of the problem, we have so far always come to the conclusion that this matter is best controlled through voluntary action by the parties concerned. I am not quite so pessimistic about the value of insurance as I think my hon. Friend is, although I agree with him that it would not provide the answer in every case. I have also learned something about the rates of insurance, and while they are substantial, they are not, I would think, prohibitive, particularly where valuable crops are concerned.
I think the answer might well lie along the lines of the industry itself in some way forming a fund from which claims for spray drift damage could be met. It is an extremely tricky problem, and my right hon. Friend certainly appreciates the difficulties and the fact that we have not yet reached a solution. He has, therefore, recently asked my noble Friend


Lord Waldegrave to make a special study of the whole of this problem.
My hon. Friend also raised some other problems arising out of recent reports of losses of bees through spraying toxic chemicals. My Ministry's chief beekeeping advisory officer has been investigating these reports and has confirmed local but serious losses to individual beekeepers. I will not confirm or deny the figure of 1 million which my hon. Friend mentioned, because, as he says, it is difficult to say, but I do agree that there have been serious losses in some localities.
My Department, on receiving this information, immediately called a meeting between the spraying contractors most immediately concerned, the Association of British Manufacturers of Agricultural Chemicals and scientific officers of the Ministry. It was confirmed that the main cause of these losses was spraying or dusting of crops in flower, chiefly field beans and mustard. Weather conditions this summer have caused a great increase in insect pests, particularly of the aphis, of which there are enormous numbers, and consequently in crop protection measures. Some farmers have little choice of when to spray, particularly as the crops came to flower so quickly in the recent warm weather, and could only save their crops by spraying or dusting while they were in flower.
An announcement was made after the meeting pointing out that further spraying and dusting of crops in flower would kill many more bees and pollinating insects, which may well reduce yields. Co-operation between farmers, spraying contractors and bee-keepers was urged, and fanners were asked to examine crops not in flower at once so that they could arrange any necessary spraying or dusting to be carried out either before or after the flowering period. Advice was also given that beekeepers should be warned of spraying operations to enable them to take any necessary precautions. The general question of the effect of toxic sprays on bees and beneficial insects generally is being considered by my Ministry, and a limited field trial is being carried out this year.
My hon. Friend also asked about the effect of toxic chemical sprays on birds and other wild life. Recommendations are already made by the Advisory Com-

mittee on Poisonous Substances about protection of wild life from certain chemicals used for spraying crops and manufacturers include these recommendations in their instructions for the use of these products.
The Nature Conservancy is actively reviewing this problem in consultation with the Ministry and other organisations concerned. They would be grateful for the facts of instances where it is believed that the use of toxic chemicals has affected wild life. They are not aware of any up-to-date evidence from this country to prove that such chemicals are causing any important or widespread reduction in bird or mammal populations.
My hon. Friend referred specifically to an advertisement by Shell in The Farmer and Stock-Breeder, a year or two ago. My attention was called to that advertisement some time ago. I understand that the Shell people sent a letter to that journal after the advertisement appeared, explaining that they were not saying in their advertisement that this substance killed pigeons. What they said was that
The presence of Dieldrex 15 appears to make crops distasteful to pigeons and they avoid feeding on treated crops, but we are satisfied from reports and observations that no pigeons or other birds have been injured as the result of these applications.
That correction was sent following the publication of the advertisement. As far as I know, there are no other reports of pigeons or other birds having been killed by that preparation. The Protection of Birds Act is, in any case, a matter for my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and any interpretation of it is a matter for the Courts. I can, however, point out that the 1954 Act was aimed at persons acting with malicious intent. Section 1 uses the word "wilfully" and Section 4 (2) (d) provides that it shall be a good defence if
The Act was the incidental result of a lawful operation.
That, I believe, deals with the point raised by my hon. Friend.
I have tried to deal factually as far as I could with the various points which my hon. Friend has raised—

Mr. Braine: My hon. Friend says that he has dealt with the point I raised. I


am not sure that he has. If there are substances which manufacturers know to be likely to affect pigeons or any other kind of pest in the field, whether it is likely to affect them by driving them away from the crop or poisoning or killing them, surely there is a case for the Ministry to investigate, as the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds requests, exactly how effective the substances are for this purpose. If they are effective again pigeons, they will be effective against other birds. All I am asking is that the facts should be ascertained. I hope that my hon. Friend will not leave the matter there but will give an assurance that an attempt will be made to establish the facts.

Mr. Godber: My hon. Friend's main point, I thought, was that birds could or would be killed. I have tried to explain that from my information that is not the case. If it were the case, it might well be that the 1954 Act could be invoked. As I have said, however, it is not for me to interpret that Act.
As regards driving birds away from one crop to another, that is not in itself sufficient evidence to justify special inquiry by my Ministry. I am, however, quite prepared to look at any evidence which comes forward. If a case can be made to justify any particular inquiry, I am certainly not averse to it. At the

moment, however, I have no such evidence before me, and although I will, of course, study what my hon. Friend has said, I do not think he has given this evidence.
All these are matters which we want to keep under constant review to see whether we can find any way of helping those who have been hard hit by the use of these substances. We want to see that the use of these substances, where it is beneficial to agriculture generally, shall continue but that any ill-effects which could come from it should be safeguarded against so that those who suffer can have some form of redress. My hon. Friend said that it was unjust to one section of farmers that they should have to bear the burden of something which was helping another section, and that surely is the key to this matter. This is an internal matter within the industry itself. We shall be glad to do anything to help, but it calls for cooperation within the industry. With that co-operation we shall do everything we can to assist. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising this subject, which I agree is important. I am sure that he will feel that we shall continue to give the best help we can in this matter.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Three o'clock.